iioNvsor 


Oni 


:10SANG; 


•LIBRAR^ 


%jnv3-jo^^ 


SIN 


THE  DIRECTION 
OF  HUMAN  EVOLUTION 


THE  DIRECTION  OF 
HUMAN  EVOLUTION 


BY 

EDWIN  GRANT  CONKLIN 

PROFESSOR  OF   BIOLOGY  IN  PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY 
AUTHOR  OF  "HEREDITY  AND  ENVIRONMENT  IN  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  MEN,"  ETC 


NEW   EDITION   WITH    PREFACE 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

1922 

6^501 


Copyright,  1921, 1922,  bt 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

Prioted  in  the  United  States  of  Amerks 


.-J  /  '^ 


PREFACE  TO  NEW  EDITION 

During  the  past  few  years,  and  especially  with- 
in the  past  twelvemonth,  there  has  been  a  remark- 
able recrudescence  of  the  old  theological  opposition 
to  the  theory  of  evolution,  especially  as  applied 
'^  to  man.    In  spite  of  the  great  amount  of  evidence 
^  which  has  been  accumulating  during  the  past  half 
century  with  regard  to  the  evolution  of  man,  it  is 
'  probable  that  nothing  more  ignorant,  frenzied,  or 
(^  intolerant  has  ever  been  uttered  against  this  theory 
^  than  has  appeared  during  the  past  year. 

No  scientific  investigator  of  ten  years  ago  would 
have  thought  it  possible  that  the  truth  or  falsity 
of  any  scientific  theory  would  ever  again  be  de- 
cided by  appeals  to  the  Bible,  or  that  an  attempt 
would  ever  again  be  made  to  determine  by  legis- 
lation what  might  be  considered  orthodox  or  heter- 
odox science;  and  yet  this  has  come  to  pass.  An 
organization  has  been  perfected  among  certain 
religious  denominations  for  the  purpose  among 
other  things  of  banishing  modernism  and  partic- 
ularly the  theory  of  evolution  from  churches  and 
schools.  Its  plan  of  campaign  has  been  outlined 
in  part  as  follows: 

"In  order  to  purify  the  institutions  wher€  mod- 


vi  PREFACE  TO  NEW  EDITION 

ernism  is  taught  we  must  discipline  and  reform 
these  institutions.  .  .  .  Our  universities,  reeking 
with  the  unbelief  of  an  evolutionistic  false  phi- 
losophy, are  the  most  dangerous  centres  in  Amer- 
ica. .  .  .  Our  government  has  undertaken  to 
regulate  business,  but  the  hour  has  come  to  regu- 
late our  education.  .  .  .  The  use  of  the  evolu- 
tionary hypothesis  must  be  abandoned.  .  .  .  The 
new  theology  and  modernism  must  be  separated 
from  our  institutions  of  learning.  .  .  .  This  splen- 
did organization  could  in  all  probability  succeed 
in  cutting  off  most  of  the  financial  support  from 
these  institutions,  if  not  in  actually  bringing  about 
their  total  destruction."  * 

Acting  upon  this  last  suggestion,  bills  have  been 
introduced  in  certain  State  Legislatures  forbidding 
the  teaching  of  evolution  or  Darwinism,  as  applied 
to  man,  and  in  one  instance  such  a  bill  came  with- 
in one  vote  of  being  passed.  Text-books  that  teach 
evolution,  even  as  an  incidental  part  of  biology  or 
geology,  have  been  condemned  and  placed  on  the 
index  prohibitus  of  this  new  Inquisition,  and  it  is 
said  that  funds  are  being  raised  to  endow  and  make 
perpetual  this  fight  against  evolution. 

All  this  is  done,  we  are  told,  to  save  the  religious 
faith  of  the  younger  generation.  Apparently  the 
leaders  in  this  movement  do  not  realize  that  they, 
and  not  the  evolutionists,  are  making  it  impossible 

*  From  The  Christian  Century,  April  28,  192 1. 


PREFACE  TO  NEW  EDITION  vii 

for  young  men  and  women  who  are  intellectually 
enlightened  to  remain  in  their  denominations.  It 
is  a  dangerous  thing  for  defenders  of  the  faith  to 
affirm,  as  these  do  repeatedly,  that  one  cannot  be 
a  Christian  and  an  evolutionist  at  the  same  time, 
for  students  of  nature  who  find  themselves  com- 
pelled by  the  evidences  to  accept  the  truth  of  evo- 
lution will  be  apt  to  conclude  that  they  must  there- 
fore count  themselves  as  opponents  of  the  churches. 
The  worst  form  of  infidelity  is  not  disbelief  in  doc- 
trines, whether  theological  or  scientific,  but  dis- 
belief in  the  ultimate  triumph  of  truth.  If  evo- 
lution is  false,  it  cannot  be  saved  by  science;  if  it 
is  true,  it  cannot  be  destroyed  by  theology. 

In  general,  the  opponents  of  evolution  have 
neither  the  technical  ability  nor  even  the  desire 
to  weigh  critically  the  evidences  for  the  truth  of 
evolution.  Properly  to  appreciate  these  evidences 
requires  some  first-hand  knowledge  of  morphology, 
physiology,  embryology,  ecology,  paleontology, 
and  genetics.  In  science  it  is  necessary  to  see  and 
handle  actual  materials  and  processes  in  order 
to  appreciate  their  significance,  as  all  who  have 
worked  in  laboratories  know.  The  advice  which 
Huxley  gave  to  the  "paper  philosophers"  of  his 
day  is  still  good  advice:  "Get  a  little  first-hand 
knowledge  of  biology."  But  the  opponents  of 
evolution  not  only  lack  such  first-hand_knowledge, 
they  usually  have  no  desire  to  get  it  second-hand 


viii  PREFACE  TO  NEW  EDITION 

from  those  who  have  studied  nature.  One  of  these 
denouncers  of  Darwin,  when  asked  if  he  had  ever 
read  his  books,  replied:  "I  wouldn't  touch  them 
with  a  ten-foot  pole."  Neither  facts,  evidences,  nor 
sweet  reasonableness  can  penetrate  such  an  armor. 
With  very  few  exceptions,  the  whole  scientific 
world  long  since  was  convinced  of  the  truth  of 
evolution,  and  every  year  which  has  passed  since 
the  publication  of  the  "Origin  of  Species,"  in  1859, 
has  added  to  the  mountain  of  evidence,  which  has 
been  piled  up  in  its  favor.  It  is  fortunately  not 
necessary  here  to  review  those  evidences,  for  they 
may  be  found  in  almost  every  elementary  text- 
book on  biology,  as  well  as  in  hundreds  of  treatises 
and  scientific  journals.  These  evidences  are  so 
numerous  and  come  from  so  many  sources  that 
no  intelligent  man  can  study  them  at  first  hand 
and  not  be  convinced  of  their  importance.  As  a 
consequence  there  is  probably  not  a  single  biological 
investigator  in  the  world  to-day  who  is  not  con- 
vinced of  the  truth  of  evolution.  The  fact  that 
these  evidences  accumulate  year  after  year,  com- 
ing sometimes  from  fields  which  Darwin  and  his 
contemporaries  never  dreamed  of,  is  still  more 
convincing.  Lord  Kelvin,  the  great  physicist, 
once  said  that  any  hypothesis  or  theory,  if  true, 
should  find  new  support  continually  as  knowledge 
advances.  This  is  just  what  has  happened  in  the 
case  of  evolution. 


PREFACE  TO  NEW  EDITION  ix 

The  opponents  of  evolution  make  much  of  the 
fact  that  it  is  only  a  theory  or  an  hypothesis,  but 
in  this  respect  evolution  does  not  differ  from  any 
other  great  generalization  of  science.  The  evi- 
dences for  the  major  transformations  in  the  evo- 
lution of  man  are  not  personal  demonstrations, 
since  they  do  not  fall  within  the  lifetime  of  a  single 
individual,  but  they  are  the  same  sort  of  evidences 
as  those  for  mountain  building,  stream  erosion, 
glacial  action,  or  any  other  secular  change.  Those 
who  urge  as  an  objection  to  evolution  that  it  is 
only  a  theory  neglect  to  say  that  their  own  views 
as  to  the  origin  of  man  can  be  dignified  by  no  higher 
title.  As  between  evolution  and  special  creation 
we  have  to  choose  between  two  theories  or  hypoth- 
eses, and  it  is  merely  a  question  of  evidence  as 
to  which  is  the  more  probable.  All  the  evidence 
available  supports  the  theory  of  evolution,  it  con- 
tinually receives  fresh  support  from  new  discover- 
ies, it  is  not  contradicted  by  any  scientific  evidence. 
Can  the  supporters  of  the  theory  of  special  creation 
say  as  much  ? 

Uncertainty  among  scientists  as  to  the  causes 
of  evolution  has  been  interpreted  by  many  non- 
scientific  persons  as  throwing  doubt  upon  its  truth. 
It  is  plain  that  the  causes  are  complex  and  that 
they  have  not  yet  been  fully  discovered;  it  is  even 
probable  that  some  of  the  proposed  causes  are 
erroneous  and  will  have  to  be  abandoned.     But 


X  PREFACE  TO  NEW  EDITION 

the  same  may  be  said  with  regard  to  the  causes 
of  gravitation,  light,  electricity,  chemical  affinity, 
life,  or  any  other  natural  phenomenon.  It  is  not 
fair  or  honest  to  quote  the  doubts  of  scientists 
regarding  the  causes  of  evolution  as  if  they  con- 
stituted an  abandonment  of  the  theory  itself,  espe- 
cially when  these  same  scientists  in  the  same  con- 
nection affirm  that  no  informed  person  can  doubt 
the  truth  of  evolution.  The  fact  of  evolution  is 
no  longer  in  question  among  men  of  science;  pres- 
ent uncertainty  and  doubt  concern  only  the  fac- 
tors or  causes.  The  problem  of  cause  is  never 
finally  solved  by  science,  for  no  sooner  is  one  cause 
discovered  than  it  gives  rise  to  questions  concern- 
ing the  cause  of  this  cause.  Strange  as  it  may 
seem,  it  is  only  with  regard  to  supernatural  phe- 
nomena that  the  causes  are  supposed  to  be  fully 
known !  But,  of  course,  this  is  due  merely  to  the 
fact  that  no  attempt  is  made  to  analyze  such  phe- 
nomena or  causes. 

If  only  the  opponents  of  evolution  could  learn 
anything  from  past  attempts  to  confute  science 
by  theology  or  the  Bible,  they  would  be  more  cau- 
tious. Such  attempts  have  promoted  neither 
science  nor  religion,  as  the  controversies  over  the 
shape  of  the  earth,  its  position  in  the  universe,  and 
its  age  abundantly  demonstrate;  and  the  case  is 
not  different  with  regard  to  the  origin  and  develop- 
ment of  life  upon  the  earth.     Scientific  investi- 


PREFACE  TO  NEW  EDITION  xi 

gators  and  productive  scholars  have  long  since 
accepted  evolution  in  the  broadest  sense  as  an 
established  fact.  Science  now  deals  with  the  evo- 
lution of  the  elements,  of  the  stars  and  solar  system, 
of  the  earth,  of  life  upon  the  earth,  of  various  types 
and  species  of  plants  and  animals,  of  the  body, 
mind,  and  society  of  man,  of  science,  art,  govern- 
ment, education,  and  religion.  In  the  light  of  this 
great  generalization  all  sciences,  and  especially 
those  which  have  to  do  with  living  things,  have 
made  more  progress  in  the  last  century  than  in  all 
the  previous  centuries  of  human  history.  Even 
progressive  theology  has  come  to  regard  evolution 
as  an  aUy  rather  than  as  an  enemy.  The  defenders 
of  religion  can  only  do  their  cause  harm  by  bring- 
ing against  this  great  generalization  of  science 
sentimental  objections  or  supposed  theological  dif- 
ficulties. The  wiser  course  would  seem  to  be  to 
recognize  the  fact  that  scientific  truth  can  be  estab- 
lished only  by  scientific  methods,  and  to  attempt  to 
readjust  theological  beliefs  to  advancing  knowledge. 
If  the  human  species,  no  less  than  all  others,  has 
come  into  existence  by  a  process  of  evolution,  what 
are  the  prospects  for  the  future  ?  May  we  look  for- 
ward to  endless  progress,  or  do  present  signs  indi- 
cate that  the  human  race  has  reached  its  climax? 
Toward  what  form  of  social  organization  is  evolu- 
tion leading?  What  are  the  tendencies  in  the  field 
of  ethics  and  religion? 


xii  PREFACE  TO  NEW  EDITION 

Certainly  no  more  important  questions  than  these 
confront  the  human  race,  and,  although  it  is  impos- 
sible to  give  a  final  answer  to  any  one  of  them,  it  is 
possible  in  the  light  of  present  tendencies  and  past 
principles  of  evolution  to  see  at  least  dimly  and  in 
ghostly  outline  the  mighty  shadows  and  shapes  of 
the  future.  It  is  in  this  spurit  only,  and  not  with 
the  vain  imagining  that  any  human  being  can  pre- 
dict particular  events  which  depend  upon  so  many 
factors  as  are  involved  in  the  evolution  of  a  race, 
that  attention  is  invited  in  this  book  to  the  direc- 
tion of  human  evolution. 

E.  G.  C. 

May  I,  1922. 


PREFACE  TO  FIRST  EDITION 

The  lectures  which  constitute  this  volume  were 
given  at  the  University  of  North  Carolina  in  May, 
1920,  under  the  terms  of  the  "John  Calvin  McNair 
Lectureship  on  the  mutual  bearings  of  science  and 
religion  upon  each  other."  One  or  two  of  them 
were  also  delivered  at  Northwestern  University, 
Mt.  Holyoke  College,  Western  University,  and  the 
University  of  Texas. 

The  topic  chosen  for  this  series  is  one  in  which 
the  bearings  of  science  upon  religion  are  most  vital, 
namely,  the  origin  and  destiny  of  the  human  race. 
I  shall  attempt  to  present  certain  conclusions  of 
science  regarding  the  evolution  of  man,  and  shall 
venture  to  draw  from  these  conclusions  certain  in- 
ferences with  regard  to  the  future  of  the  human 
race,  but  I  have  no  desire  to  force  others  to  accept 
these  conclusions  or  inferences. 

The  spirit  of  science  is  freedom  to  seek  and  to 
find  truth,  freedom  to  hold  and  to  teach  any  view 
for  which  there  is  rational  evidence,  recognition 
that  natural  knowledge  is  incomplete  and  subject 
to  revision,  and  that  there  is  no  legitimate  com- 
pulsion in  science  except  the  compulsion  of  evidence. 

The  method  of  science  is  to  proceed  from  observa- 

xiii 


Xiv  PREFACE  TO  FIRST  EDITION 

tions  to  tentative  explanations  which  are  then 
tested  by  further  observations  and  experiments, 
thus  reaching  general  explanations  or  theories. 
Scientific  theories  are  not  mere  guesses  but  are 
based  upon  careful,  detailed  observations,  but 
where  time  and  space  forbid  entering  into  details, 
as  is  true  in  these  lectures,  only  general  conclusions 
can  be  given.  On  the  other  hand  the  philosophical 
and  religious  deductions  which  are  based  upon  sci- 
entific theories  must  necessarily  be  still  more  ten- 
tative, and  it  is  hoped  that  the  reader  will  take  this 
for  granted  even  though  it  is  not  always  expressly 
stated. 

The  aim  of  real  science,  as  well  as  of  true  religion, 
is  to  know  the  truth,  confident  that  even  unwel- 
come truth  is  better  than  cherished  error,  that  the 
welfare  of  the  human  race  depends  upon  the  exten- 
sion and  diffusion  of  knowledge  among  men,  and 
that  truth  alone  can  make  us  free. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  argue  the  truth  of  the 
general  theory  of  organic  evolution;  the  day  for 
this  is  passed.  Evolution  in  the  widest  sense  is 
accepted  by  most  men  of  science,  and  the  evidences 
for  it  need  not  be  recalled  here.  Nor  do  I  propose 
to  present  in  detail  the  evidences  for  the  evolution 
of  man;  this  has  been  done  in  many  other  places 
and  need  not  be  repeated  here.  My  purpose  is 
rather  to  consider  the  course  of  past  evolution  only 
in  so  far  as  it  bears  upon  the  present  and  to  apply 


/* 


PREFACE  TO  FIRST  EDITION  xv 

the  principles  which  have  guided  evolution  in  the 
past  to  the  present  and  future  evolution  of  the 
human  race.  In  doing  this  I  hope  not  only  to  deal 
with  a  phase  of  the  subject  which  will  be  more 
immediately  practical  and  profitable  than  a  mere 
consideration  of  past  evolution  would  be,  but  which 
also  may  avoid  many  controversies,  for  whatever 
our  views  may  be  as  to  the  past  evolution  of  man 
there  is  general  belief  in  the  present  and  future  de- 
velopment and  evolution  of  the  human  race. 

Finally,  in  considering  the  bearings  of  evolution 
upon  government  and  religion,  I  realize  that  I  am 
dealing  with  subjects  which  are  generally  regarded 
as  quite  outside  the  field  of  biology.  However,  I 
am  convinced  that  nothing  which  concerns  man  is 
wholly  foreign  to  the  fundamental  principles  of 
life  and  evolution,  and  that  the  future  progress  of 
mankind  depends  upon  a  rational  application  of 
the  principles  of  science  to  all  human  affairs. 
Everywhere  intellectual  classes  are  breaking  away 
from  old  traditions;  everywhere  old  faiths  are  be- 
ing critically  examined;  everywhere  evidence  is  de- 
manded in  place  of  authority,  and  the  times  call 
for  a  restatement  of  the  reasons  for  the  faith  that 
is  in  us. 

The  recent  cataclysm  which  has  swept  over  the 
world,  the  perils  of  civilization,  the  threatenings  of 
revolution  and  Bolshevism  and  the  wide-spread  re- 
crudescence  of   emotionalism,   irrationalism,   and 


xvi  PREFACE  TO  FIRST  EDITION 

selfishness  have  caused  all  thoughtful  people  to  look 
anxiously  to  the  future.  Many  persons  believe 
that  our  civilization,  like  other  civilizations  of  the 
past,  is  showing  signs  of  degeneration  and  decay, 
that  throughout  the  world  the  less  intelligent  and 
more  selfish  elements  of  society  are  coming  to  con- 
trol government,  industry,  and  education,  while 
the  best  elements  are  dying  out  or  .are  losing  con- 
trol. Others  look  forward  with  alarm  to  increasing 
conflicts  between  the  races  of  mankind,  to  a  "Rising 
Tide  of  Color  in  the  Struggle  for  World  Suprem- 
acy,"* and  to  elimination  of  the  finest  types  in 
"The  Passing  of  the  Great  Race."  f 

Chesterton  says  that  the  World  War  put  a  stop 
to  all  our  talk  about  human  evolution,  but  this  is 
certainly  not  true.  Never  before  have  the  prob- 
lems of  the  future  evolution  of  man,  whether  pro- 
gressive or  retrogressive,  been  so  insistent  and  ab- 
sorbing, and  never  before  has  it  been  so  important 
for  men  to  get  a  comprehensive  and  steady  view  of 
human  evolution  and  of  human  destiny. 

Certain  portions  or  abstracts  of  these  lectures 
have  been  printed  in  Princeton  University  Lectures^ 
Scrihner^s  Magazine,  the  Yale  Review,  and  the 
Methodist  Church  Congress  Series.  I  am  indebted 
to  these  publications  for  permission  to  rewrite  and 
enlarge  these  portions  for  this  volume.     I  wish  also 

*  Stoddard,  Lothrop,  New  York,  1920. 
t  Grant,  Madison,  New  York,  1918. 


PREFACE  TO  FIRST  EDITION  xvii 

to  express  my  obligations  to  Dr.  J.  H.  McGregor 
of  Columbia  University  for  the  photograph  of  his 
restorations  of  primitive  men,  which  is  reproduced  in 
the  frontispiece,  and  to  some  of  my  colleagues  for 
friendly  advice  and  criticism. 

E.  G.  C. 


CONTENTS 

FACE 

Preface  to  New  Edition v 

Preface  to  First  Edition xiii 

I.    PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  OF  HUMAN 
EVOLUTION 

I.    Introduction 3 

A.  The  Law  of  Continuity 7 

B.  The  Principles  of  Evolution    ...  9 

1.  evolution    is   trans-formation    and 

NOT  new-formation 9 

2.  evolution     is     transformation     of 

germplasm  and  not  of  developed 

BODIES  OF  animals  OR  PLANTS        .       .  lO 

3.  INFLUENCE    OF    ENVIRONMENT    ON    EVO- 

LUTION        II 

INHERITANCE      OF      ACQUIRED     CHAR- 
ACTERS          13 

4.  SOCLAL  INHERITANCE 14 

C    The  Results  of  Evolution  ....  15 

1.  diversity 15 

2.  adaptation 16 

3.  progress 16 

(a)  THE  paths  of  progress  ....  18 

(b)  progress  most  rapid  at  first       .  19 

n.    The  Past  Evolution  of  Man 25 

III.  Modern  Races  of  Men _„ 31 

IV.  The  Peopling  of  the  Earth 36 

V.    Hybridization  of  Races     .     .     .    ^     .     .  47 

zix 


XX  CONTENTS 


PACK 


VI.    Present  and  Future  Evolution  of  Man   ,  54 

A.  Physical  Evolution 54 

EUGENICS 56 

B.  Intellectual  Evolution 65 

C.  Social  Evolution 69 

D.  Man's  Conquest  or  Nature  .     .     .     .77 

VII.    Will  there  Be  a  Higher  Animal  than  Man?  79 


II.    EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 
The  Biological  Foundations  of  Society 

A.    Physical,  Intellectual,  Social  Evolu 
TiON  NOT  Antagonistic  . 


B.  Social  Progress  Means  Greater  Spe 

cialization  and  Co-operation 

C.  Society  Founded  on  Instincts  . 
II.    Progress  in  Human  History  .     .     . 

ni.    The  Biological  Bases  of  Democracy 


85 

85 

88 
90 

95 

100 


IV.    Personal  Liberty  vs.  Social  Organization  112 

V.    Democratic  Equality  vs.  Hereditary  In- 
equality         127 

VI.    Universal   Fraternity   vs.    National    and 

Class  Antagonisms 134 

Conclusion 155 


III.    EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

I.    The  Nature  of  Religion 161 

A.    Cosmic  Mysteries 162 


CONTENTS  xxi 

PAGE 

B.  The  Problem  of  Evil 163 

C.  The  Inner  Conflict 165 

D.  The  Function  of  Religion    ....  166 

II.    The  Evolution  of  Religion 169 

III.  The  Conflict  between  Theology  and  Sci- 

ence     178 

IV.  Nature  and  the  Supernatural   ....  185 

A.  Popular    Misconceptions    of   Nature 

and  the  Supernatural      ....  186 

B.  Scientific  Conception  of  Law  .     .     .  193 

C.  Supernaturalism  in  Religion     ...  197 

V.    Evolution  vs.  Creation 202 

VI.    Evolution  and  the  Biblical  Account  .     .  206 

VII.    Is  Evolution  Atheistic? 209 

VIII.    Evolution  and  the  Doctrine  of  Design   .  218 

IX.    The  Nature  of  Man 230 

X.    The  Religion  of  Evolution 237 

A.  Progress  through  Struggle  ....  237 

B.  Ethnocentric  rather  than  Egocentric  240 

C.  The  Outcome  or  Evolution  ....  245 


PATHS   AND   POSSIBILITIES  OF 
HUMAN  EVOLUTION 


INTRODUCTION 

Until  about  fifty  years  ago  it  was  generally  be- 
lieved, even  by  scientists,  that  man  had  been  re- 
cently and  miraculously  created,  and  that  he  stood 
apart  from  the  rest  of  nature  in  solitary  grandeur. 
It  was  thought  that  the  whole  past  history  of  man 
and  even  of  the  earth  and  stellar  universe  had  been 
a  very  brief  one,  dating  back  only  to  about  4,000 
years  B.  C,  or  approximately  200  human  genera- 
tions, and  many  persons  confidently  expected  that 
the  future  would  be  even  shorter.  It  is  an  inter- 
esting fact  that  until  very  recent  times  the  insta- 
bility of  nature  and  its  approaching  end  were 
deeply  impressed  on  most  minds.  Prophets  looked 
forward  to  a  speedy  end  of  the  world;  poems  were 
written  on  "The  Last  Man";  various  sects  pre- 
pared their  ascension  robes  and  waited  for  the 
comet  to  strike  the  earth  or  the  eternal  trumpet  to 
sound;  and  even  those  who  did  not  prepare  often 
believed  and  trembled. 

What  a  revolution  has  occurred  in  our  concep- 
tion of  man  and  nature  during  the  past  few  years ! 
Science  has  taught  us  something  of  the  wonderful 
stability  of  nature,  something  of  the  continuity 
and  eternity  of  natural  processes,  something  of  the 


4  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

universality  of  natural  law,  something  of  the  im- 
mensity of  time  and  space.  There  is  no  longer 
any  doubt  among  scientists  that  man  is  descended 
from  animal  ancestors.  There  is  no  longer  any 
serious  question  among  leading  biologists  and  an- 
thropologists that  not  only  the  body,  but  also  the 
mind  and  society  of  man  are  the  products  of  evo- 
lution. For  a  time  there  was  a  tendency  to  admit 
the  truth  of  evolution  so  far  as  man's  body  was 
concerned,  but  to  deny  it  in  respect  to  his  mind 
and  society.  But  this  position  was  satisfactory 
to  no  one.  Neither  the  evolutionist  nor  the  special 
creationist  could  be  satisfied  with  such  a  divided 
origin  for  man,  and  more  recent  work  on  the  psy- 
chology and  society  of  different  races  of  men  and 
of  animals  below  man  has  shown  the  same  sort  of 
evidence  for  the  evolution  of  human  intellect  and 
society  as  for  the  evolution  of  the  body.  Man,  then, 
in  his  entirety  is  regarded  by  science  as  the  product 
of  evolution.  His  actual  origin  goes  back  not  to 
Adam  and  Eve  and  the  Garden  of  Eden,  6,000 
years  ago,  but  to  more  primitive  races  of  men,  and 
then  to  prehuman  ancestors,  and  in  the  end  to 
the  earliest  forms  of  life  upon  the  earth.  Between 
us  and  these  earliest  forms  there  has  been  an  un- 
broken line  of  descent,  an  uninterrupted  stream 
of  life  through  all  the  ages. 

And  this  enormously  long  past  history  leads  us 
to  believe  that  the  future  will  be  equally  long.     It 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  5 

has  been  customary  to  look  upon  evolution  as  a 
process  which  flourished  mightily  "in  the  dark 
backward  and  abysm  of  time"  but  which  has  prac- 
tically come  to  an  end  to-day.  But  evolution  looks 
forward  as  well  as  backward.  The  eternal  laws  of 
nature  will  not  cease  to  operate  to-day  or  to-morrow. 
We  are  creatures  of  a  day;  our  lives  are  mere  points 
in  the  great  curve  of  evolution;  what  changes  the 
future  may  have  in  store  for  the  human  race  no  man 
can  clearly  foresee.  And  yet  one  who  stands  on 
the  shore  and  sees  the  curve  of  the  sky  and  sea  can, 
in  imagination,  extend  this  arc  until  it  circles  the 
globe,  and  he  feels  the  earth  beneath  him  rolling 
through  space.  From  a  few  observations  an  astron- 
omer can  calculate  the  whole  orbit  of  a  comet  and 
predict  when  it  will  return,  perhaps  hundreds  or 
thousands  of  years  hence.  And  so,  although  we 
catch  but  glimpses  of  great  processes  which  come 
out  of  eternity  and  go  into  eternity,  we  can  project 
the  great  principles  of  past  evolution  into  the  future 
and  venture  upon  a  scientific  prophecy  of  "What 
mankind  shall  be." 

It  was  the  peculiar  ability  of  Darwin  to  see 
nature  in  four  dimensions — length,  breadth,  depth, 
and  duration.  He  observed  the  activities  of  earth- 
worms for  a  season,  and  then  calculated  the  agri- 
cultural and  geological  importance  of  worms  acting 
through  many  years.  He  observed  the  minor  varia- 
tions of  animals  and  plants,  and  then  saw  the  evo- 


6  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

lutionary  significance  of  such  changes  when  ex- 
tended throughout  geological  time.  He  saw  the 
great  destruction  of  weak  and  ill-adapted  plants 
and  animals  each  year,  and  projecting  this  process 
backward  through  the  ages  found  a  natural  ex- 
planation for  the  wonderful  fitness  of  organisms. 

One  who  stands  on  the  brink  of  the  Grand  Canon 
and  reflects  on  the  duration  of  time  necessary  for 
a  stream  of  water  to  have  cut  this  vast  chasm  in 
the  solid  rock,  and  then  thinks  of  the  still  longer 
time  during  which  these  rocks  were  being  laid  down 
as  sediments  beneath  the  sea,  has  a  measuring-rod 
which  may  be  used  in  estimating  the  duration  of 
the  evolutionary  process.  One  who  views  man, 
not  as  the  creation  of  a  few  years  ago,  but  as  the 
product  of  vast  series  of  prehistoric  ages — such  a 
one  only  can  take  the  long  view  with  regard  to  the 
human  race,  not  only  as  to  the  past  but  also  as 
to  the  future. 

There  is  increased  breadth  of  view  and  accuracy 
of  judgment  and  increased  confidence  and  satis- 
faction in  the  long  view  of  the  human  race  as  con- 
trasted with  the  short  view.  One  who  has  in  mind 
the  whole  course  of  evolution  and  of  human  his- 
tory will  not  be  deceived  into  thinking  that  local 
eddies  and  back  currents  are  the  main  stream. 
One  who  recalls  what  the  human  race  has  come  up 
from  will  not  yield  to  despair  over  the  present 
crises  of  civilization.     Even  the  selfishness,  stu- 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  7 

pidity,  and  irrationality  of  men  will  not  cause  him 
to  forget  the  advances  of  the  past  nor  to  lose  faith 
in  the  future.  The  long  view  of  human  history 
is  not  only  the  sane  and  rational  one,  but  it  is  also 
the  hopeful  view. 

It  is  often  said  that  science  deals  only  with  the 
past  and  present  and  leaves  the  future  to  prophets 
and  seers.  This  is  true  with  regard  to  many  de- 
tails the  causes  of  which  are  numerous  and  com- 
plex. But  on  the  other  hand  it  is  possible  to  pre- 
dict general  tendencies  and  phenomena  which  will 
result  from  fundamental  principles  and  causes. 
The  details  of  the  future  evolution  of  man  no  one 
can  predict,  but  the  outcome  of  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  evolution  may  be  predicted,  for  we  have 
confidence  that  these  principles  are  constant  and 
that  they  will  continue  to  operate  in  the  future  as 
in  the  past.     What  are  these  principles? 

A.    The  Law  of  Continuity 

"Pour  juger  de  ce  qui  est  arrive,  et  m6me  de  ce  qui 
arrivera,  nous  n'avons  qu'a  examiner  ce  qui  arrive"  (Buf- 
fon,  "Theorie  de  la  Terre.") 

"To  understand  what  has  happened,  and  even 
what  will  happen,  we  have  only  to  examine  what  is 
happening."  This  is  what  has  been  called  the 
"Law  of  Continuity" — or  more  accurately  the 
"Doctrine  of  Uniformity,"  namely,  the  belief  that 
nature  is  uniform  and  her  processes  continuous,  that 


8  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

the  laws  of  cause  and  effect,  of  gravity,  of  conser- 
vation of  matter  and  energy,  of  thermodynamics, 
chemical  affinity,  life  and  death,  heredity,  develop- 
ment, and  evolution  are  the  same  yesterday,  to-day, 
and  forever.  The  astronomer,  physicist,  and  chem- 
^ist  believe  that  laws  of  gravity,  light,  electricity, 
and  the  combinations  and  dissociations  of  chemical 
elements  are  the  same  to-day  as  when  the  "morn- 
ing stars  first  sang  together."  The  biologist  be- 
lieves that  the  animals  which  lived  and  reproduced 
on  the  shores  of  the  Paleozoic  seas  had  protoplasm 
and  cells,  nuclei  and  chromosomes,  and  that  their 
nutrition,  reproduction,  embryonic  development, 
senescence,  and  death  were  essentially  the  same  as 
in  the  animals  we  now  study  at  our  marine  labora- 
tories; that  the  Mendelian  laws  of  inheritance,  varia- 
tion, and  evolution  applied  to  the  earliest  living 
things  as  well  as  to  the  latest.  All  science  is  based 
upon  the  fundamental  belief  that  in  natural  laws 
"there  is  neither  variableness  nor  shadow  of  turn- 
ing." Variableness  in  events  (not  in  laws),  and 
even  what  we  call  chance,  are  not  capricious  but 
are  themselves  governed  by  law;  they  are  merely 
the  results  of  new  combinations  of  existing  factors 
or  causes.  We  have  applied  this  principle  of  con- 
tinuity and  uniformity  to  the  past  evolution  of  the 
universe,  to  the  stars,  solar  system,  and  earth,  to 
the  evolution  of  animals  and  plants,  and  even  of 
man;  and  in  the  light  of  what  is  happening  now 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  9 

have  been  able  to  judge  what  has  happened  in  the 
past.  And  where  the  factors  involved  are  not  too 
numerous  we  can  apply  this  principle  to  the  future 
and  determine  what  will  happen  in  time  to  come; 
and,  even  where  it  is  not  possible  to  predict  with 
certainty  particular  events  because  of  the  com- 
plexity of  the  factors  involved,  it  is  yet  possible 
to  determine  future  tendencies  and  oossibilities. 

B.    The  Principles  of  Evolution 

I.  Evolution  Is  Trans-formation  and  Not  New- 
formation 

Evolution  consists  in  new  combinations  of  the 
elements  of  which  organisms  are  composed  and  not 
in  the  formation  de  novo  of  such  elements.  Nowhere 
in  nature,  neither  in  the  hving  nor  in  the  lifeless 
world,  is  there  such  a  thing  as  creation  out  of 
nothing.  Every  new  thing  is  formed  by  new  com- 
binations of  things  already  present.  In  chemistry 
and  physics  these  are  the  atoms  or  the  electrons  of 
which  the  atoms  are  composed;  in  biology  they  are 
the  organs,  cells,  chromosomes,  the  hereditary  char- 
acters, inheritance  units,  or  the  molecules  of  which 
such  units  are  composed.  Evolution  doe-  not  con- 
sist in  the  creation  de  novo  of  molecules,  unit",  char- 
acters, organs,  or  functions,  but  rather  in  new  com- 
binations of  these. 

At  the  same  time  it  must  be  recognized  that  new 
combinations   give   rise   to   new   qualities.     When 


lO  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

hydrogen  and  oxygen  combine  they  produce  some- 
thing which  is  different  from  either,  and  when  differ- 
ent hereditary  units  combine  they  produce  char- 
acters unUke  those  of  the  parents;  even  in  the  forma- 
tion of  new  hereditary  units,  or  what  are  now  called 
mutations,  we  have  only  new  combinations  of  the 
elements  of  which  such  units  are  composed.  This 
formation  of  new  qualities  as  the  result  of  new- 
combinations  of  the  same  old  elements  may  be 
called,  following  Bergson,  "creative  evolution," 
but  it  is  important  to  remember  that  it  does  not 
differ  essentially  from  the  similar  phenomenon  in 
chemistry  and  physics  which  is  known  as  "creative 
synthesis,"  and  that  it  results  merely  from  new  com- 
binations, that  it  is  transformation  and  not  new- 
formation. 

2.  Evolution  Is  Transformation  of  Germplasm  and 
Not  of  Developed  Bodies  of  Animals  or  Plants 

The  only  living  bond  between  successive  genera- 
tions is  found  in  the  germ  cells,  which  extend  back 
from  us  without  a  break  to  our  earliest  progenitors, 
and  any  evolutionary  changes  which  are  to  trans- 
form races  or  species  must  take  place  in  these 
germ  ceUs.  The  body  may  undergo  great  changes 
as  the  result  of  environment,  use  or  disuse,  or  other 
causes,  but  the  body  is  mortal — it  develops  and 
dies  in^  each  generation — whereas  the  germ  cells 
are,  potentially  at  least,  immortal.     Consequently 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  ii 

changes  in  heredity  are  due  to  changes  in  the 
immortal  germplasm  rather  than  in  mortal  bodies; 
and  evolution,  which  is  based  on  changes  in  hered- 
ity, consists  in  the  evolution  of  germplasm  rather 
than  of  developed  organisms. 

In  spite  of  much  controversy,  due  largely  to  lack 
of  clear  thinking,  it  is  now  practically  certain  that 
characters  acquired  by  the  mortal  body  are  not 
inherited;  that  is,  are  not  transmitted  to  the  germ- 
plasm. Evolutionary  changes  are  not  first  wrought 
in  developed  bodies  but  in  germplasm. 

3.  Influence  of  Environment  on  Evolution 

All  theories  as  to  the  causes  of  evolution  agree 
in  ascribing  more  or  less  importance  to  the  influ- 
ence of  environment.  Lamarckism  maintains  that 
changes  in  individuals  are  caused  directly  by 
changes  in  environment,  and  that  these  individual 
changes  are  inherited  and  thus  bring  about  racial 
changes.  Darwinism  teaches  that  "variations  of 
every  sort  are  caused  by  changed  conditions  of 
life,"  but  that  those  which  are  injurious  are  quickly 
eliminated  while  only  those  which  are  beneficial, 
that  is,  well  adapted  to  environment,  persist  and 
constitute  the  building  materials  of  evolution. 
The  mutation  theory  of  de  Vries  teaches  that  varia- 
tions are  of  two  distinct  kinds:  first,  fluctuations 
which  are  changes  in  the  developed  organism  and 
are  not  inherited;  and  second,  mutations  which  are 


12  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

changes  in  the  germplasm  and  are  inherited. 
Fluctuations  are  caused  chiefly  if  not  entirely  by 
changes  in  environment,  and  while  the  causes  of 
mutations  are  not  known  with  certainty  it  seems 
most  probable  that  they  also  are  to  be  found 
in  environmental  influences — meaning  by  environ- 
ment everything  which  surrounds  the  inheritance 
units  or  genes  of  the  germplasm.  These  mutations 
appear  without  reference  to  whether  they  are  valu- 
able or  injurious;  as  a  matter  of  fact  probably  only 
one  out  of  a  thousand  is  beneficial,  but  those  which 
are  injurious  are  eliminated  by  the  environment. 
Consequently  the  direction  of  evolution  has  to  a 
certain  extent  been  determined  by  the  environ- 
mental conditions. 

In  short,  all  modern  theories  of  the  causes  of 
evolution  maintain  that  heritable  variations  are 
probably  caused  by  changes  in  environment,  and 
all  evolutionists  to-day  believe  that  whether  these 
variations  survive  or  are  wiped  out  depends  upon 
their  relation  to  environment.  Environment  thus 
plays  a  very  important  part  in  evolution,  and  any 
hypothesis  that  wholly  discards  or  disregards  this 
factor  can  have  no  standing  in  science. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  this  does  not  justify  the 
opinion  that  environmental  changes  are  the  sole 
causes  of  evolution.  Undoubtedly  the  organism 
that  is  acted  upon  is  as  important  as  the  environ- 
ment which  acts  upon  it.     Evolution  is  one  of  the 


TATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  13 

responses  of  the  germplasm  to  environmental  stim- 
uli, and  the  character  of  the  response  is  deter- 
mined in  large  part  by  the  constitution  of  the  germ- 
plasm  rather  than  by  the  stimulus.  Thus  both  the 
organism  and  its  surroundings,  its  hereditary  con- 
stitution and  its  environment,  are  concerned  in 
evolution,  as  well  as  in  development  or  any  other 
vital  activity.  It  is  certain  that  the  outer  environ- 
ment may  act  directly  upon  germ  cells,  or  indirectly 
through  the  inner  environment  of  the  body.  But 
this  does  not  mean  that  germ  cells  react  to  environ- 
ment in  identically  the  same  way  that  body  cells 
do;  indeed  every  kind  of  cell  responds  to  environ- 
mental stimuli  in  its  own  peculiar  way — muscle 
cells  in  one  way,  nerve  cells  in  another,  gland  cells 
in  still  another,  and  it  is  probable  that  different 
kinds  of  germ  cells,  or  even  the  same  kinds  at  dif- 
ferent stages  in  their  development,  respond  to  the 
same  environment  in  different  ways. 

Inheritance  of  Acquired  Characters. — But,  assum- 
ing that  the  hereditary  constitution  of  the  germ 
cells  may  sometimes  be  changed  by  environmental 
influences,  there  is  no  argument  in  this  for  the  "in- 
heritance of  acquired  characters."  For  both  ver- 
bally and  historically  this  expression  means  that 
changes  in  body  cells  produced  by  environmental 
influences  are  transmitted  through  the  germ  cells 
to  the  body  cells  of  the  next  generation;  and  ana- 
lyzing this  process  further  it  would  imply  that  par- 


14  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

tides  or  units  of  the  germplasm  must  react  to 
environmental  changes  in  exactly  the  same  way  as 
organs  or  parts  of  the  body  do.  In  short,  "in- 
heritance of  acquired  characters"  implies  that  the 
germ  is  the  body  in  miniature,  and  this  is  certainly 
not  true. 

Furthermore,  it  is  known  as  a  matter  of  fact 
that  acquired  characters  are  not  usually,  if  ever, 
inherited.  Environment,  training,  education  may 
greatly  modify  the  glands,  muscles,  and  nerves, 
but  they  do  not  change  the  germplasm  so  as  to 
produce  these  identical  modifications  in  the  next 
generation.  The  hope  of  permanently  improving 
the  human  race,  or  any  other  species,  in  this  man- 
ner can  only  lead  to  disappointment  and  failure. 

4.  Social  Inheritance 

At  the  same  time  it  must  be  remembered  that 
man  transmits  to  his  descendants  not  only  a  par- 
ticular germplasm,  consisting  of  hereditary  units, 
which  determine  his  bodily  qualities  and  mental 
capacities,  but  he  also  hands  down  through  lan- 
guage, education,  and  customs,  and  not  through 
the  germplasm,  his  own  personal  acquirements, 
experiences,  and  possessions.  This  may  be  called 
"  Social  Inheritance,"  though  it  is  a  totally  different 
thing  from  "Biological  or  Germinal  Inheritance." 
In  this  sense  we  have  inherited  from  our  parents 
language,    property,    customs,    laws,    institutions. 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  15 

They  are  no  part  of  our  germplasm,  nor  even  of  our 
bone  and  sinew  and  brain,  but  rather  of  our  envi- 
ronment. Because  of  this  social  inheritance  society 
may  advance  from  age  to  age,  each  succeeding  gen- 
eration starting  where  the  preceding  one  ended,  as 
in  a  relay  race — whereas  in  our  germinal  inheri- 
tance each  generation  begins  where  the  previous 
one  began,  namely  from  an  egg-cell,  and  the  whole 
course  of  development  must  be  repeated  in  each 
generation. 

C.  The  Results  of  Evolution 
In  the  course  of  evolution  organisms  have  moved 
forward,  backward,  and  sidewise,  or  rather  they 
have  spread  as  the  branches  of  a  tree,  some  of 
them  merely  diverging  at  the  same  level  of  organi- 
zation, others  growing  upward,  and  still  others 
downward.  The  results  of  evolution  may  be  sum- 
marized in  three  words:  Diversity,  Adaptation, 
Progress. 

I.  Diversity 
Diversity  is  seen  in  the  innumerable  variations, 
mutations,  and  species  of  the  living  world.  Most 
of  these  are  no  more  complex  or  perfect  than  the 
stocks  from  which  they  have  sprung,  and  some  of 
them  are  degenerate  descendants  of  more  perfect 
ancestors.  Diversity,  in  short,  is  mere  change, 
whether  progressive  or  retrogressive,  whether  use- 
ful, indifferent,  or  harmful. 


i6  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

2.  Adaptation 
Adaptive  evolution  is  increasing  perfection  of  ad- 
justment to  conditions  of  life.  The  only  scientific 
explanation  of  such  adjustment  or  fitness  is  Dar- 
mn's  principle  of  natural  selection  of  the  fit  and 
elimination  of  the  unfit,  and  it  is  eloquent  testimony 
to  the  greatness  of  Darwin  that  more  and  more  this 
great  principle  is  being  recognized  as  the  only 
mechanistic  explanation  of  adaptation.  Whether 
natural  selection  is  a  complete  explanation  of  all 
adaptation  may  be  doubted,  but  at  least  it  is  one 
of  the  most  important  causes  of  adaptive  evolution. 

3.  Progress 

Progressive  evolution  is  the  advance  in  organiza- 
tion from  the  simplest  to  the  most  complex  or- 
ganisms, from  amoeba  to  man.  Biological  progress 
means  increasing  complexity  of  structures  and  func- 
tions, increasing  specialization  and  co-operation  of 
the  parts  and  activities  of  organisms,  and  human 
progress,  whether  physical,  intellectual,  or  social, 
means  no  more  and  no  less  than  this. 

It  is  often  assumed  that  there  are  no  necessary 
limits  to  progress  in  any  fine,  and  that  the  past 
course  of  evolution  shows  that  man  came  from 
primordial  protoplasm  and  will  go  on  to  endless 
growth  and  glory.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  past 
course  of  evolution  teaches  that  the  limits  of  prog- 
ress are  fixed  by  its  very  nature.     No  single  animal 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  17 

or  plant,  however  complex  it  may  be,  can  combine 
within  itself  all  the  complexities  of  all  organisms. 
Increasing  specialization  means  increasing  limita- 
tions in  certain  directions  in  order  to  advance  in 
others.  If  a  creature  have  wings  it  cannot  also 
have  hands  (except  in  art  where  angels  are  given 
an  extra  pair  of  appendages  and  hair  and  feathers 
are  mixed  regardless  of  zoological  classification) ;  if 
its  limbs  are  differentiated  for  running  they  cannot 
also  be  speciaHzed  for  swimming;  if  it  have  enor- 
mous strength  it  cannot  also  have  great  delicacy 
of  movement.  Thus  while  certain  animals  are 
specialized  in  one  direction,  and  others  in  another, 
no  animal  can  be  differentiated  in  all  directions. 

Furthermore,  increasing  specialization  leads  to 
lack  of  adaptability;  peculiar  fitness  for  any  special 
condition  of  life  means  unfitness  for  other  and  differ- 
ent conditions.  When  differentiations  in  any  one 
direction  go  so  far  that  they  unfit  the  organism  for 
any  condition  of  life  except  a  single  and  special 
one,  the  chances  for  survival  are  greatly  reduced, 
and  sooner  or  later  this  highly  differentiated  or- 
ganism becomes  extinct  or  returns  to  a  more  gen- 
eralized type. 

Paleontology  is,  in  the  main,  the  science  of  or- 
ganisms that  were  too  highly  differentiated  to  ad- 
just themselves  to  the  new  conditions  that  came 
upon  them  and  which  therefore  became  extinct. 
The  death  of  species,  like  the  death  of  individuals, 


l8  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

is  the  price  that  is  paid  for  differentiation.  One- 
celled  organisms  and  all  germ  cells  are  potentially 
immortal,  but  the  highly  differentiated  bodies  of 
animals  and  plants  and  their  highly  differentiated 
muscle,  nerve,  and  tissue  cells  are  mortal,  probably 
because  they  are  too  highly  specialized  to  adjust 
themselves  to  all  the  changing  conditions  of  exist- 
ence. 

Similarly  species  that  are  not  highly  specialized 
are  highly  adaptable,  and  have  great  powers  of 
survival,  while  those  that  are  highly  specialized 
have  little  adaptability,  and  consequently  are  more 
likely  to  become  extinct.  For  this  reason  new 
paths  of  evolution  usually  start  from  generalized 
rather  than  from  highly  specialized  types. 

(a).  The  Paths  of  Progress. — Millions  of  diver- 
sities exist  among  organisms,  and  they  are  appear- 
ing continually;  thousands  of  adaptations  have 
arisen  during  the  course  of  evolution  and  are  still 
arising;  but  different  lines  of  progress  have  been 
relatively  few.  The  most  important  paths  of  prog- 
ress throughout  all  the  past  ages  have  been  in  the 
direction  of 

(i)  Increasing  bodily  complexity,  or  the  multipli- 
cation and  differentiation  of  cells,  tissues,  organs, 
and  systems; 

(2)  Increasing  intelligence,  or  the  capacity  of 
profiting  by  experience,  which  comes  with  increas- 
ing organization  of  the  nervous  system; 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  19 

(3)  Increasing  social  organization,  or  the  differ- 
entiation and  integrations  of  individuals  or  persons, 
whether  among  ants,  bees,  or  men. 

(b).  Progress  Most  Rapid  at  First. — In  all  these 
paths  of  evolution  progress  is  most  rapid  at  first, 
and  it  then  slows  down  until  it  stops.  It  may  be 
compared  to  a  curve  which  rises  rapidly  at  first, 
and  then  approaches  more  and  more  to  a  straight 
line.  Or  better  still,  it  may  be  compared  to  a 
flow  of  lava  which  rushes  forward  while  it  is  at 
white  heat  and  fresh  out  of  the  crater,  but  goes 
more  and  more  slowly  as  it  cools  until  it  stops  al- 
together; if  the  central  stream  remains  fluid  (or 
the  organism  remains  labile  and  relatively  undiffer- 
entiated) it  may  burst  out  and  again  flow  rapidly 
in  one  direction  or  another  until  it  again  cools  and 
stops. 

The  rate  of  evolution  has  not  been  uniform 
throughout  the  past.  Apparently  there  have  been 
periodic  advances  or  waves  of  evolution.  De  Vries 
thinks  that  there  have  been  periods  of  mutation 
alternating  with  periods  of  stabihty  in  the  history 
of  species.  Paleontologists  have  generally  attrib- 
uted these  evolutionary  waves  to  changes  in  envi- 
ronment, and  they  call  attention  to  the  evidence 
that  the  periods  of  most  rapid  human  evolution 
coincided  with  the  great  climatic  changes  during 
the  four  successive  glacial  epochs  and  the  inter- 
glacial  periods. 


20  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

(i)  Bodily  Complexity. — Probably  the  furthest 
possible  limits  of  progressive  evolution  have  already- 
been  reached  in  all  well-tried  lines  of  progress. 
Further  progress  must  be  made  in  new  lines  if  at 
all,  and  from  generalized  rather  than  from  highly 
specialized  types. 

One-celled  organisms  reached  their  utmost  limits 
of  complexity  millions  of  years  ago ;  since  then  they 
have  shown  many  diversities,  many  adaptations, 
but  little  if  any  progress. 

Also  many-celled  animals  and  plants  long  ago 
reached  the  limits  of  their  possible  progress  in 
almost  every  line.  Multiplication  of  cells,  tissues, 
organs,  systems,  metameres,  and  zooids  enormously 
increased  the  possibilities  of  specialization  within 
each  of  these  larger  units  of  organization,  but  for 
millions  of  years  there  has  been  little  further  prog- 
ress in  this  direction  of  multiplicity  and  com- 
plexity. Only  about  fourteen  times  in  the  whole 
history  of  life  upon  the  earth  have  new  animal 
phyla  appeared,  and  many  of  these  were  mere 
blind  alleys  which  led  nowhere,  not  even  to 
many  species;  there  have  been  no  new  phyla  since 
fishes  appeared  in  the  Silurian  age,  no  new  classes 
since  mammals  appeared  in  the  Triassic  and  birds 
in  the  Jurassic.  Each  of  these  classes  of  Verte- 
brates reached  its  maximum  of  complexity  in  the 
ages  immediately  following  its  first  appearance, 
and  thereafter  it  maintained  only  this  level  or  more 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  21 

frequently  underwent  a  decline.  The  amphibians 
which  first  appeared  in  the  Carboniferous  reached 
their  greatest  complexity  in  the  Permian.  The 
reptiles  which  first  appeared  in  the  Permian  reached 
their  climax  in  the  Mesozoic.  The  mammals  which 
appeared  in  the  Triassic  reached  their  greatest  de- 
velopment in  the  Quaternary. 

What  is  true  of  great  classes  of  organisms  such 
as  those  named  is  equally  true  of  families,  genera, 
and  species.  One  need  only  recall  the  paleon- 
tological  history  of  dinosaurs,  elephants,  camels, 
etc.,  to  realize  that,  measured  by  geological  time, 
organisms  rather  quickly  reach  the  limits  of  their 
progress  in  any  particular  line.  Diversities  may 
continue  to  appear  in  all  these  types.  Many  new 
species  have  evolved  and  are  still  appearing,  there 
have  been  diversifications  and  adaptation  almost 
without  limit,  but  progress  in  the  sense  of  increas- 
ing complexity  of  organization  has  practically  come 
to  an  end. 

(2)  Animal  Societies. — There  are  many  grades 
of  individuality  in  the  living  world  from  the  visible 
and  even  the  invisible  parts  of  cells  to  whole  cells, 
cell  aggregates,  tissues,  organs,  systems,  persons, 
compoimd  animals,  and  finally  colonies  and  states. 
There  are  many  grades  of  organization  from  the 
bacterium  to  the  vertebrate,  from  the  germ  cell  to 
the  man.  Animal  societies  are  the  highest  grade 
of  organization  which  has  yet  appeared  on  earth. 


2  2  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

In  such  societies  the  specialization  and  co-operation 
of  persons  make  possible  a  higher  degree  of  organ- 
ization than  has  ever  appeared  before. 

The  evolution  of  animal  societies  may  be  traced 
from  a  condition  in  which  every  individual  is  much 
like  every  other  one,  and  the  bond  of  connection 
between  them  is  very  slight,  up  to  societies  of  ants, 
bees,  and  termites,  in  which  the  specialization  and 
co-operation  of  individuals  is  extraordinarily  de- 
veloped. 

Already  differentiation  among  ants  and  termites 
has  gone  so  far  that  in  the  most  complex  colonies 
the  three  principal  functions  of  life,  namely  nutri- 
tion, reproduction,  and  defense,  are  no  longer  found 
in  the  same  individuals;  "workers"  are  unable  to 
reproduce  or  to  defend  the  colony,  males  and  fe- 
males are  unable  to  get  food  or  to  defend  themselves, 
"soldiers"  are  unable  to  reproduce  or  even  to  feed 
themselves.  At  the  same  time  co-operation  within 
the  colony  is  practically  perfect.  It  is  difficult  to 
imagine  how  differentiation  and  integration  can 
go  farther  than  this,  and  unless  it  does  go  farther 
progress  in  this  direction  has  come  to  an  end. 

(3)  Intellectual  evolution  is  the  last,  and,  from 
the  human  point  of  view,  the  most  important  path 
of  progress  which  has  ever  been  discovered  by  or- 
ganisms. In  lower  animals  intellect  is  either  lack- 
ing or  is  but  little  developed,  and  behavior  is  guided 
entirely  by  rigid  instincts;  in  higher  animals  it  is 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  23 

more  fully  developed,  but  instinct  is  still  the  rule 
of  life;  in  man  only  has  intellect  become  to  a  cer- 
tain extent  the  master  of  instinct,  so  that  he  can- 
not only  regulate  his  conduct  in  the  light  of  experi- 
ence but  can  to  a  certain  extent  forecast  the  future 
and  prepare  for  it. 

Here,  as  in  the  case  of  physical  and  social  evolu- 
tion, the  factors  or  elements  out  of  which  the  new 
product,  intellect,  is  built  are  present  in  the  lowest 
and  simplest  forms  of  life,  but  it  is  only  by  the  in- 
creasing differentiation  and  integration  of  these 
elements  that  progress  is  achieved.  The  elements 
out  of  which  the  psychic  faculties  of  man  have  been 
developed  are  present  in  all  organisms,  even  in 
germ  cells,  in  the  form  of  sensitivity,  tropisms,  re- 
flexes, organic  memory,  "trial  and  error,"  and  a 
few  other  properties;  in  more  complex  animals 
these  take  the  form  of  special  senses,  instincts, 
emotions,  associative  memory;  in  the  highest  ani- 
mals, and  especially  in  man,  they  blossom  forth 
as  intelligence,  reason,  will,  and  consciousness. 
Many  stages  of  this  development  may  be  seen  in 
various  animals  below  man,  and  also  in  the  devel- 
opment of  the  human  personality  from  the  germ 
cells.* 

There  is  no  evidence  that  intellectual  progress, 
as  distinguished  from  mere  diversity,  is  still  going 
on  among  animals,  and  that  they  will  ultimately 

•See  Conklin,  "  Heredity  and  Environment,"  1920,  pp.  32-56. 


24  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

graduate  into  man's  class.  For  thousands  of  years 
man  has  endeavored  to  improve  by  selective  breed- 
ing the  intelligence  of  certain  animals,  especially 
of  dogs  and  horses;  undoubtedly  much  improve- 
ment has  been  made,  but  in  intelligence,  as  in  other 
qualities,  a  limit  to  improvement  is  sooner  or  later 
reached  beyond  which  it  is  not  possible  to  go. 

In  bodily  complexity,  social  organization,  and 
intellectual  capacity  progressive  evolution  has  vir- 
tually come  to  an  end  among  organisms  below  man; 
further  progress,  if  it  occurs,  must  be  in  new  paths 
and  from  generalized  rather  than  from  highly  spe- 
cialized types.  Has  progressive  evolution  come  to 
an  end  in  the  case  of  man  also? 


II 

THE  PAST  EVOLUTION  OF  MAN 

Solar  years,  individual  lives,  and  human  genera- 
tions are  too  brief  to  be  used  as  an  adequate  measur- 
ing-rod for  the  enormously  long  process  of  human 
evolution.  We  generally  count  time  from  the 
birth  of  Christ,  and  to  us  this  seems  a  remote  event. 
But  the  birth  of  Christ  is  no  more  than  midway 
between  our  times  and  the  earliest  civilization  in 
Europe,*  while  the  civilizations  of  Egypt  and  Meso- 
potamia go  back  to  a  period  at  least  3,000  years 
B.  C.  At  this  remote  time  there  were  in  the  val- 
leys of  the  Nile,  Euphrates,  and  Tigris  great  cities 
and  states,  highly  organized  forms  of  society,  and 
a  culture  represented  by  some  of  the  greatest  monu- 
ments of  human  history,  highly  developed  agricul- 
ture and  industries,  the  use  of  metals  and  the  re- 
cording of  laws,  customs,  wars,  and  even  of  scien- 
tific observations  in  writings.  Even  one  thousand 
years  earlier,  at  the  date  fixed  upon  by  Archbishop 
Usher  for  the  creation  of  the  world  and  of  man,  viz., 
4000  B.  C,  there  were  in  these  valleys  great  popula- 
tions that  had  domesticated  horses,  donkeys,  cattle, 
sheep,  goats,  ducks,  and  geese;  that  were  cultivating 
barley,  millet,  wheat,  and  flax;  that  had  through 

♦Crete. 

25 


26  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

long  periods  of  time  developed  various  improved 
breeds  and  races  of  these  animals  and  plants  from 
their  originally  wild  stocks.  They  had  begun  the 
smelting  of  ores  and  the  use  of  copper  implements; 
there  were  skilled  craftsmen  in  various  industries; 
they  had  a  complicated  system  of  writing  and  had 
developed  a  calendar  of  twelve  months  of  thirty 
days  each,  with  five  feast  days  at  the  end  of  the 
year,  thus  showing  a  remarkable  knowledge  of  as- 
tronomical time.  Adam  and  Eve  may  well  have 
been  civilized  human  beings,  for,  according  to  the 
Usher  chronology,  they  came  only  in  the  fulness  of 
time  and  of  human  populations,  and  after  the  be- 
ginnings of  civilization. 

But  back  of  this  civilization  lay  long  years  of 
barbarism  and  savagery,  known  as  the  neolithic 
and  the  paleolithic  ages.  The  records  of  the  former 
are  found  in  various  parts  of  the  world  in  caves, 
cliffs,  and  lake-dwellings,  in  skeletons  from  ceme- 
teries, caves,  and  sedimentary  deposits  of  lakes  and 
rivers,  accompanied  by  bricks  and  pottery,  beautiful 
stone  implements,  ornaments  of  various  kinds,  and 
carvings  and  paintings  on  walls  and  cliffs.  While 
it  is  difhcult  to  date  this  neolithic  age,  the  best  evi- 
dence indicates  that  around  the  Mediterranean  it 
goes  back  to  near  the  end  of  the  last  glacial  epoch, 
say  approximately  10,000  years  ago. 

Back  of  this  neolithic  age  lie  the  paleolithic  ages 
of  savagery,  the  records  of  which  are  for  the  most 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  27 

part  stone  implements  and  weapons;  the  latest  of 
these  are  of  beautiful  workmanship,  while  the 
earliest  are  so  crude  that  it  is  often  difficult  to  de- 
cide whether  or  not  they  are  the  work  of  man. 
Along  with  these  artifacts,  skeletal  remains  have 
been  found  which  indicate  that  the  men  of  the  later 
paleolithic  ages  were  of  the  same  species  and  had 
the  chief  physical  characteristics  of  the  present 
human  species,  Homo  sapiens^  and  the  stratigraph- 
ical  evidences  indicate  that  in  Europe  the  existing 
species  of  man  goes  back  at  least  20,000  to  30,000 
years.* 

In  the  still  more  remote  past  occur  skeletal  re- 
mains of  other  and  more  primitive  species  of  man. 
Most  of  these  are  represented  by  one  or  at  most  a 
few  specimens,  but  one  of  the  extinct  species  of 
man,  Homo  neanderthalensis,  is  represented  by  at 
least  six  skulls  as  well  as  other  remains  found  in 
various  parts  of  western  Europe  from  Gibraltar 
to  Germany.  This  Neanderthal  type  was  dis- 
tinctly more  ape-like  than  the  present  species:  he 
had  a  low,  retreating  forehead,  heavy  supraorbital 
ridges,  protruding  jaws  and  face,  and  retreating 
chin.  Rude  flint  implements  associated  with  these 
remains  indicate  that  the  Neanderthal  man  was 
able  at  least  to  chip  flint  so  as  to  produce  weapons 
and  implements  with  sharp  cutting  edges.    These 

*  On  this  subject  see  especially  Henry  Fairfield  Osborn's  "  Men  of 
the  Old  Stone  Age,"  New  York,  1916. 


2  8  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

remains  are  associated  with  the  skeletons  of  other 
mammals,  many  of  them  now  extinct,  which  charac- 
terize the  later  Pleistocene  of  Europe,  and  the  pre- 
vaihng  opinion  among  geologists  is  that  they  be- 
long to  the  period  of  the  third  or  fourth  glacial 
epoch.  It  is  obviously  impossible  to  translate  these 
geological  epochs  into  years  with  any  degree  of 
certainty,  but  at  a  venture  it  may  be  said  that  the 
Neanderthal  race  lived  somewhere  between  25,000 
and  100,000  years  ago.  We  do  not  know  whether 
the  Neanderthal  species  evolved  into  modern  man, 
or  whether  he  amalgamated  with  other  types,  or 
whether  he  was  exterminated  by  the  existing  species, 
but  in  western  Europe  he  appeared  before  the  pres- 
ent species  and  was  finally  completely  replaced  by 
it. 

Other  types  of  man  of  a  still  more  ape-like  form 
are  represented  by  a  few  skeletal  remains  in  earlier 
geological  formations.  One  of  the  most  important 
of  these  fossils  is  the  famous  Heidelberg  jaw,  found 
in  1907  near  Heidelberg,  Germany.  It  is  unlike 
any  other  human  jaw  in  its  unusual  massiveness 
and  lack  of  a  chin,  and  yet  the  teeth  are  distinctly 
human  in  shape.  There  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  that  it  represents  a  species  of  man  still  more 
primitive  and  ape-like  than  the  Neanderthal  type, 
and  accordingly  this  species  has  been  named  Homo 
heidelbergensis.  This  jaw  was  found  at  a  depth  of 
seventy-nine  feet  below  the  surface,  associated  with 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  29 

remains  of  many  extinct  mammals  qf  the  first  or 
second  interglacial  period,  and  it  therefore  carries 
the  human  record  back  to  the  middle  or  early 
Pleistocene,  possibly  250,000  years  ago. 

Finally  the  earliest  type  of  man-like  creature  so 
far  discovered  is  the  erect  ape-man,  Pithecanthropus 
erectus,  discovered  by  Dubois  at  Trinil,  Java,  in 
1892.  These  remains  consist  of  a  skull  cap,  a  tooth, 
and  a  thigh-bone,  and  it  is  evident  that  they  belong 
to  a  type  intermediate  between  man  and  the  higher 
apes — that  they  are,  in  short,  one  of  the  long- 
sought  ''missing  links."  The  geological  formation 
in  which  these  fossils  were  found  includes  many 
extinct  mammals  of  the  late  Pliocene  or  pre-glacial 
period,  possibly  500,000  years  ago. 

It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Pithecanthropus 
and  the  Heidelberg  and  Neanderthal  races  stand 
in  the  direct  line  of  descent  of  modem  man ;  for  all 
we  know  to  the  contrary  they  may  be  collateral 
branches  from  the  main  human  stem.  But  they 
do  represent  the  most  primitive  types  of  man  so 
far  discovered. 

Even  at  this  early  stage,  half  a  miUion  years 
ago,  the  human  line  was  already  distinct  from 
those  of  the  higher  apes,  although  these  lines  were 
then  much  closer  together  than  at  present,  and  the 
actual  period  at  which  they  come  together  is  as- 
sum.ed  by  Osborn  to  have  been  in  the  Oligocene 
age,  perhaps  a  million  years  earlier.    If  this  opinion 


30  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

is  correct  the  line  of  man's  descent  has  been  dis- 
tinct from  that  of  his  nearest  living  relatives,  the 
anthropoid  apes,  for  an  immensely  long  period  of 
time,  perhaps  one  or  two  million  years.  The  entire 
Christian  Era  represents  not  more  than  i-5oth  part 
of  the  time  since  the  Neanderthal  man  flourished, 
not  more  than  1-2  50th  of  the  time  since  Pithecan- 
thropus, and  probably  not  more  than  i- 500th  part 
of  the  time  since  the  human  line  split  off  from  that 
of  the  apes.  The  human  race  is  very  old  as  mea- 
sured by  our  years  and  generations,  and  back  of  the 
first  appearance  of  human  types  lie  unnumbered 
millions  of  years  during  which  evolution  was  mov- 
ing on  from  the  lowest  forms  of  life  to  the  highest 
— from  amoeba  to  man. 


Ill 

MODERN  RACES  OF  MAN 

When  for  a  few  centuries  one  group  of  human 
beings  became  isolated  from  others  there  devel- 
oped, as  happens  now  with  most  animals  and 
plants,  local  varieties,  mutants,  and  races,  which 
were  probably  peculiarly  adapted  to  the  local  con- 
ditions, owing  to  the  struggle  for  existence  and  the 
survival  of  the  fit.  Thus,  for  example,  if  the  color 
of  primitive  man  was  reddish  or  brownish,  white  or 
yellow  or  black  men  may  have  arisen  in  different 
regions,  and  at  different  times  as  mutants,  or  heredi- 
tary varieties.  These  mutations  would  have  per- 
sisted if  not  positively  injurious,  and  they  would 
have  gradually  replaced  individuals  of  other  colors 
if  they  had  been  better  adapted  to  local  conditions. 
Once  a  few  mutant  races  were  established,  diversi- 
fications of  mankind  proceeded  not  only  by  muta- 
tion and  natural  selection  but  also  by  the  process 
of  cross-breeding,  and  the  very  numerous  subraces, 
types,  and  breeds  of  mankind  owe  their  origin  in 
considerable  part  to  such  mixtures  of  mutant  races. 

The  principles  of  Mendelian  inheritance  show 
that  for  every  pair  of  contrasting  characters  in  the 
two  parents,  as  for  example  straight  or  curly  hair, 

31 


32  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

brown  or  blue  eyes,  there  are  two  types  of  grand- 
children showing  these  characters;  when  there  are 
five  such  pairs  of  contrasting  characters  in  the 
parents  there  may  be  (2)^  or  32  types  of  grand- 
children showing  various  combinations  of  these  five 
characters;  when  there  are  ten  pairs  of  contrasting 
characters  there  may  be  (2)^*^  or  1,024  types  of 
grandchildren.  Between  different  races  there  are 
many  more  than  ten  unit  differences,  and  thus  with 
a  relatively  small  number  of  mutant  characters  an 
enormous  number  of  different  combinations  of  the 
characters  is  possible  in  the  offspring.  Subsequent 
inbreeding  of  such  a  mixed  race  leads  to  the  separa- 
tion or  segregation  of  particular  types,  having  cer- 
tain of  these  combinations,  from  other  types  having 
other  combinations.  In  this  way,  practically  all  of 
our  domestic  animals  and  cultivated  plants  have 
been  produced,  and  probably  many,  if  not  all,  exist- 
ing branches  of  the  human  species  owe  their  origin, 
not  only  to  mutations,  but  also  to  the  mingling  of 
successive  waves  of  migration  and  the  amalgamation 
of  different  mutant  types,  which  had  arisen  and 
multiplied  in  isolated  regions.  Since  the  early 
radiations  from  the  birthplace  of  the  species  there 
have  been  many  currents  of  migration  running  in 
many  directions  which  have  led  to  a  more  or  less 
intimate  commingling  of  different  types,  and  where 
such  commingling  was  later  followed  by  isolation, 
races  or  subraces  were  formed.     In  this  manner, 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  33 

probably  all  the  numerous  existing  branches  of  the 
human  species  were  established. 

Three  primary  races  of  mankind  are  generally 
recognized  in  the  world  to-day,  namely  the  white, 
yellow,  and  black  races — the  brown  and  red  races 
being  generally  regarded  as  offshoots  of  one  or 
more  of  these  primary  races.  In  addition  to  these 
primary  races  there  are  many  subraces  and  breeds, 
most  if  not  all  of  them  being  of  hybrid  origin.  In- 
deed there  are  few  if  any  types  of  mankind  to-day 
that  are  not  hybrids  between  races,  subraces,  or 
breeds.  Among  these  subraces  are  the  light  and 
the  dark  whites,  and  several  types  of  browns,  reds, 
yellows,  and  blacks.  In  each  of  these  groups  there 
are  innumerable  varieties  that  run  into  one  another 
by  insensible  degrees,  as  would  be  expected  in  the 
case  of  hybrids. 

The  question  has  often  been  raised  whether  the 
primary  races  of  mankind  do  not  represent  distinct 
species.  It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  define 
the  term  *' species"  in  a  manner  which  will  be  uni- 
versally acceptable,  but  in  general  biologists  agree 
that  in  the  animal  and  plant  world  true  species 
differ  in  more  respects  and  to  a  greater  degree  than 
do  the  primary  races  of  mankind.  Furthermore, 
true  species  do  not  generally  produce  fertile  hybrids 
when  interbred,  though  there  are  many  exceptions 
to  this  rule,  whereas  all  races  of  mankind  produce 
fertile  hybrids  when  crossed.     Therefore  systema- 


34  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

tists  generally  agree  that  there  is  at  present  but  one 
species  of  man,  namely  Homo  sapiens^  and  that  all 
races  and  varieties  have  arisen  in  the  first  instance 
from  a  common  human  stock. 

Again  the  question  is  often  asked :  Which  of  these 
races  of  mankind  represents  most  nearly  the  orig- 
inal ancestral  stock,  and  which  has  departed  farthest 
from  that  stock.  Comparison  of  any  modern  race 
with  the  Neanderthal  or  Heidelberg  types  shows 
that  all  have  changed,  but  probably  the  negroid 
races  more  closely  resemble  the  original  stock  than 
the  white  or  yellow  races.  The  separation  of  these 
primary  races  occurred  long  before  the  historic  era. 
In  the  period  of  the  cave  men  of  Europe,  possibly 
25,000  years  ago,  remains  of  two  races  have  been 
found,  the  Cro-Magnons,  resembling  more  closely 
the  white  or  brown  races  of  the  present,  and  the 
Grimaldi  race  with  negroid  characteristics.  We  do 
not  know  when  the  white  and  yellow  races  first 
became  distinct,  but  this  also  was  probably  at  a 
very  remote  period. 

The  subraces  and  minor  subdivisions  of  the  hu- 
man species  have  arisen  much  more  recently,  some 
of  them  within  the  historic  era,  and  many,  if  not 
most  of  them,  as  the  results  of  migration  and  hy- 
bridization. Three  branches  of  the  white  race  in 
Europe  are  generally  recognized,  namely  the  tall, 
blond,  Nordic  race  of  northern  Europe;  the  stocky, 
dark,  Alpine  race,  probably  of  Asiatic  origin;  and 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  35 

the  small,  dark,  Mediterranean  race  surrounding 
the  sea  of  that  name,  and  probably  extending  east- 
ward to  India.* 

The  subdivisions  of  the  other  primary  races  as 
well  as  the  many  hybrid  types  found  in  various 
parts  of  the  world  cannot  be  considered  here.  But 
emphasis  must  be  placed  upon  the  fact  that  the 
evolution  of  these  subraces  was  not  due  entirely 
to  divergent  mutations  of  an  originally  common 
stock,  but  also  to  recombination  and  hybridization 
of  groups  already  present,  which  probably  arose  in 
the  first  instance  as  a  result  of  mutation  and  diver- 
gent evolution. 

Furthermore  it  is  probable  that  many  charac- 
teristics which  have  hitherto  been  regarded  as 
hereditary  or  racial  may  be  due  to  environmental 
causes;  it  is  probable,  for  example,  that  stature, 
long-headedness  (doHcocephaly)  or  round-headed- 
ness  (brachycephaly),  etc.,  may  sometimes  be  caused 
by  higher  or  lower  activity  of  the  thyroid  gland 
and  that  this  may  be  influenced  by  food,  particu- 
larly by  the  iodine  intake. 

*For  a  full  discussion  of  these  races  see  Madison  Grant's  "The 
Passing  of  the  Great  Race,"  New  York,  19 18. 


IV 

THE  PEOPLING   OF  THE   EARTH 

Man  has  always  been  a  wandering  animal;  he 
is  the  most  wide-ranging  of  all  mammals.  From 
his  earliest  home,  probably  in  the  table-lands  of 
central  Asia,  successive  waves  of  human  migration 
have  flowed  forth  in  all  directions.  The  records 
of  these  earliest  wanderings  are  lost  in  the  haze  of 
immense  antiquity  but  we  have  reason  to  believe 
that  for  at  least  a  thousand  centuries  primitive 
man  wandered  over  vast  regions  of  Asia,  Europe, 
and  Africa.  Long  before  the  beginnings  of  recorded 
history  men  had  found  and  occupied  every  habita- 
ble land  on  the  globe  with  the  possible  exception 
of  a  few  distant  oceanic  islands.  Everywhere  the 
"aborigines,"  who  were  found  by  white  men  in 
their  earliest  explorations,  were  not  the  first  inhabi- 
tants, but  were  invaders  who  had  driven  out  still 
earlier  peoples.  When  the  Maoris  first  came  to 
New  Zealand,  they  found  an  earlier  race  there,  the 
Morioris,  whom  they  exterminated  or  drove  out 
to  more  inhospitable  lands  such  as  the  Chatham 
Islands;    when  the  Australian  "aborigines"  first 

came  to  that  land  they  found  it  already  occupied 

36 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 


37 


by  another  race  who  retreated  before  them  to 
Tasmania;*  the  Polynesian  race  was  preceded  in 
its  occupancy  of  the  Pacific  Islands  by  an  unknown 
race  which  left  great  monolithic  monuments,  as  in 
Fiji  and  in  Easter  Island;  the  American  Indians 
were  preceded  by  the  ''Mound  Builders";  and 
similarly  in  every  part  of  the  world  it  is  difficult 
to  get  back  to  the  first  human  inhabitants.  In 
the  thousands  of  centuries  which  separate  the  origin 
of  the  earliest  human  types  from  the  period  of 
written  history,  mankind  had  wandered  over  all 
parts  of  the  earth. 

During  this  time  the  surface  of  the  earth  itself 
suffered  many  changes;  portions  which  are  now 
covered  by  seas  were  then  dry  lands;  isolated 
islands  were  then  connected  with  continents;  four 
great  ice  ages  separated  by  interglacial  epochs, 
each  lasting  for  thousands  of  years,  came  and  went ; 
large  portions  of  the  northern  hemisphere  were 
at  times  as  inhospitable  as  central  Greenland  is 
to-day  and  again  these  regions  were  covered  with 
forests  and  luxuriant  vegetation  and  inhabited 
by  strange,  extinct  animals;  and  throughout  all 
these  changes  in  the  earth's  surface  and  in  its 
living  inhabitants,  primitive  men  discovered  and 
occupied  practically  every  habitable  portion  of  the 
globe. 

The  total  human  population  of  the  earth  has 

*Spencer,  W.  Baldwin.    "Federal  Handbook  on  Australia,"  1914. 


SS  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

been  estimated*  to  be  about  1,700,000,000,  distrib- 
uted among  the  different  races  as  follows: 

White  race  about 550,000,000 

Yellow  race  about 500,000,000 

Brown  race  about 450,000,000 

Black  race  about 150,000,000 

Red  race  about 40,000,000 

It  should  be  noted  that  it  is  customary  to  count 
persons  of  mixed  white  and  colored  blood  as  be- 
longing wholly  to  the  colored  races,  so  that  the 
figures  given  above  rather  minimize  the  white 
element  in  the  population  of  the  globe. 

In  general  the  growth  of  population  is  correlated 
with  tjie  area  occupied  and  with  the  agricultural 
and  industrial  development  of  the  people.  Where 
there  is  much  crowding,  populations  are  either 
stationary  or  are  growing  slowly.  Where  there  is 
a  rich  and  abundant  area,  the  growth  of  popula- 
tion is  usually  rapid.  Tribes  with  antisocial  or 
nomadic  instincts,  such  as  American  Indians, 
Bedouins,  and  Gypsies  are  decreasing  under  the 
pressure  of  population  and  are  destined  ultimately 
to  disappear,  unless  they  adopt  the  habits  of  more 
settled  peoples. 

In  China  the  population  is  practically  at  a  stand- 
still. It  is  growing  in  Japan  and  overflowing  into 
other  countries,  but  on  the  whole  the  yellow  race 

*  Stoddard,  Lothrop.  "The  Rising  Tide  of  Color  Against  White 
World  Supremacy,"  New  York,  1920,  p.  6. 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  39 

is  not  increasing  very  rapidly  in  numbers.  Fecun- 
dity is  high  but  so,  also,  is  mortality.  In  spite  of 
the  great  area  which  it  occupies  the  black  race  is 
not  increasing  in  numbers  in  Africa,  whereas  by 
immigration  and  natural  increase  the  white  race 
in  that  continent  is  growing  rapidly.  Even  in  the 
United  Stated  the  rate  of  increase  of  the  blacks 
is  not  equal  to  that  of  the  whites,  for  although  the 
birth-rate  is  high,  the  death-rate  is  also  high. 

The  white  race  with  about  one-third  of  the  total 
population  of  the  globe  occupies  four-tenths  of  the 
habitable  land  and  has  political  control  over  nine- 
tenths  of  it.*  In  the  more  densely  populated 
portions  of  Europe  the  population  is  approaching 
a  stationary  condition,  but  in  the  wide  areas  of 
America,  Africa,  and  Australasia  it  is  expanding 
rapidly. 

In  spite  of  the  occasional  alarms  which  are 
sounded  with  regard  to  "race-suicide"  it  is  evident 
that  the  white  race  is  at  present  increasing  more 
rapidly  than  any  of  the  other  human  races.  This 
is  due  not  merely  to  the  larger  area  which  it  con- 
trols, but  also  to  its  greater  agricultural,  industrial, 
and  scientific  development.  While  the  birth-rate 
isifalling  everywhere,  the  death-rate  is  faUing  more 
rapidly  among  whites  than  among  other  races. 

How  long  this  greater  growth  of  the  white  race 
may  go  on  no  one  can  foresee,  but  certainly  we 

*  Stoddard,  L.,  loc.  cit. 


40  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

may  anticipate  that  it  will  continue  until  the  rela- 
tively unoccupied  areas  which  it  now  controls  are 
much  more  densely  populated.  But  in  an  indus- 
trial age  it  is  not  so  much  land  area  as  sources  of 
energy  such  as  coal,  oil,  and  water  power  that 
count  most.  Where  these  are  abundant,  there 
are  the  "seats  of  power."  Some  of  these  have 
been  rapidly  exhausted  in  the  white  man's  countries 
and  it  is  believed  that  great  stores  of  them  are 
found  in  other  lands,  especially  in  China.  This 
undoubtedly  betokens  a  great  industrial  develop- 
ment in  China  in  the  near  future  and  this  in  turn 
will  lead  to  a  further  increase  of  population  in 
that  country. 

Most  of  our  "race  problems"  are  of  relatively 
recent  origin  and  are  caused  chiefly  by  the  pressure 
of  population  within  certain  centres  and  its  over- 
flow into  other  lands  as  well  as  by  the  importation 
of  cheap  labor.  The  white  man  in  particular  has 
forced  himself  on  other  races,  and  the  pressure  of 
whites  into  the  lands  of  colored  races  has  gone 
much  farther  than  the  reverse.  Furthermore,  the 
white  man's  demand  for  cheap  labof  is  chiefly  re- 
sponsible for  the  importation  of  cplored  races  into 
the  lands  of  the  whites  and  for  the  general  mixing 
up  of  all  races  of  mankind.  The  present  competi- 
tion between  races  is  a  contest  in  the  relative  growth 
of  populations  and  in  economic  progress  rather  than 
in  military  power. 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  41 

In  all  living  things  populations  tend  to  increase 
in  geometrical  ratio,  while  the  limits  of  the  habita- 
ble globe  remain  fixed.  Migration  may  for  a  time 
relieve  this  pressure  of  overpopulation,  but  its 
limits  are  soon  reached.  In  the  case  of  man  the 
control  and  utilization  of  natural  resources  has 
greatly  extended  the  possible  limits  of  population, 
but  it  is  evident  that  these  resources  are  not  indefi- 
nite in  extent.  The  whole  world  must  look  for- 
ward to  a  time,  at  no  distant  date,  when  the  limits 
of  population  will  be  reached  everywhere. 

In  his  "Principles  of  Economics"  (8th  edition, 
page  180)  Alfred  Marshall  says: 

Taking  the  present  population  of  the  world  at  one  and  a 
half  thousand  millions;  and  assuming  that  its  present  rate 
of  increase  will  continue  (about  8  per  1,000  annually;  see 
Ravenstein's  paper  before  the  British  Association  in  1890), 
we  find  that  in  less  than  200  years  it  will  amount  to  six  thou- 
sand millions,  or  at  the  rate  of  about  200  to  the  square  mile 
of  fairly  fertile  land.  (Ravenstein  reckons  28  million  square 
miles  of  fairly  fertile  land,  and  14  millions  of  poor  grass- 
lands. The  first  estimate  is  thought  by  many  to  be  too  high ; 
but  allowing  for  this,  if  the  less  fertile  land  be  reckoned  in 
for  what  it  is  worth,  the  result  will  be  about  30  million  square 
miles  as  assumed  above.)  Meanwhile  there  will  probably 
be  great  improvements  in  the  arts  of  agriculture;  and,  if 
so,  the  pressure  of  population  on  the  means  of  subsistence 
may  be  held  in  check  for  about  200  years,  but  not  longer. 

Pearl*  has  shown  that  the  growth  of  popula- 
tion in  the  United  States  may  be  represented  very 

*  Pearl,  R.     Proceedings  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  June,  1920. 


42  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

accurately  by  a  long  /-shaped  curve,  in  which  our 
present  population  of  about  loo  millions  falls  near 
the  middle  point,  and  he  predicts  that  "the  maxi- 
mum population  which  continental  United  States, 
as  now  arealy  limited,  will  ever  have  will  be  roughly 
twice  the  present  population."  He  estimates  that 
this  maximum  will  be  reached  in  about  i8o  years, 
and  that  at  that  date  "unless  our  food  habits 
radically  change,  or  unless  our  agricultural  pro- 
duction radically  increases,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  import  nearly  or  quite  one-half  of  the  calories 
necessary  for  that  population." 

This  is  a  different  story  from  that  which  we  have 
been  accustomed  to  hear.  No  longer  is  it  true  that 
"Uncle  Sam  has  land  enough  to  give  us  all  a  farm," 
and  the  time  is  not  very  far  off — only  about  six 
human  generations — when  the  death-rate  in  this 
country  must  equal  the  birth-rate,  or  our  descen- 
dants of  that  date  must  emigrate.  And  where  will 
they  go?  By  that  time  other  parts  of  the  world 
will  be  much  more  fully  occupied,  and  other  na- 
tions may  choose  to  be  more  careful  for  their  future 
than  we  have  been  for  ours.  And  we  thought  we 
had  room  enough  for  all  the  crowded  peoples  of  the 
earth  for  all  time  to  come !  This  country  will  then 
have  no  immigration  problem,  but  for  hundreds  of 
years  more  our  descendants  will  have  the  racial 
problems  bequeathed  to  them  by  us,  in  order  that 
we  might  "get  rich  quick"  by  importing  cheap 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  43 

foreign  labor  and  by  stripping  our  land  of  its  natural 
resources  as  rapidly  as  possible. 

The  dangers  of  overpopulation  have  been  em- 
phasized by  many  scientists  since  Malthus  pub- 
lished his  famous  essay  on  this  subject.  In  general, 
these  warnings  have  been  lightly  regarded,  owing 
chiefly  to  the  enormous  advances  of  science  in 
making  available  natural  resources.  Many  per- 
sons seem  to  think  that  these  advances  will  go  on 
indefinitely  and  that  therefore  populations  can 
increase  indefinitely,  but  this  is  certainly  not  true ! 
"The  population  question,"  says  Huxley,  "is  the 
real  riddle  of  the  Sphinx,  to  which  no  political 
(Edipus  has  as  yet  found  the  answer.  In  view  of 
the  ravages  of  the  terrible  monster,  overmultipli- 
cation,  all  other  riddles  sink  into  insignificance."  * 

Nature  will,  of  course,  solve  this  problem  for 
us  if  we  do  not  solve  it  for  ourselves.  Apart 
from  migration  there  are  two  ways,  and  only  two, 
of  preventing  overpopulation — by  increasing  the 
death-rate  or  decreasing  the  birth-rate.  In  all 
civiHzed  countries  the  death-rate  has  been  decreas- 
ing during  the  past  century,  but  if  overcrowding 
and  underfeeding  should  occur  the  death-rate 
will  inevitably  increase.  In  the  older  and  more 
populous  portions  of  the  world  the  birth-rate  has 
also  been  decreasing,  especially  during  the  past 

*  Huxley,  T.  H.    "The  Natural  Inequalities  of  Men,"  Collected 
Essays,  New  York,  p.  328. 


44  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

two  or  three  generations.  In  the  main  this  has 
been  due  to  voluntary  causes,  and  in  so  far  as  it 
represents  an  intelUgent  and  ethical  control  of 
reproduction,  and  not  mere  selfishness,  it  is  to  be 
commended.  Future  ages  may  see  a  complete 
reversal  of  the  current  legal  aspects  of  birth- 
control;  in  a  densely  populated  globe,  instead  of 
discouraging  this  and  forbidding  the  diffusion  of 
knowledge  regarding  it,  the  privilege  of  having 
children  may  be  strictly  limited.  Hitherto  evolu- 
tionary progress  has  depended  to  a  large  extent 
upon  overpopulation,  the  struggle  for  existence 
and  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  In  rational  and 
moral  human  societies  this  kind  of  natural  selec- 
tion can  never  again  be  allowed  to  work  as  it  has 
done  in  the  past,  but  possibly  overpopulation  may 
bring  about  a  rational  solution  of  this  problem 
along  the  lines  of  eugenics  and  birth-control. 

Stoddard  has  said  that  the  great  danger  to  the 
white  race  in  this  struggle  for  supremacy  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  the  colored  races  can  underlive  the 
whites.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  abso- 
lute requirements  of  food  and  clothing  differ  in 
different  races.  The  basal  metabolism  as  measured 
in  calories  of  food  is  not  markedly  greater  for  white 
men  than  for  yellow  or  black  men  living  under 
the  same  conditions.  No  doubt  the  standards  of 
living  are  at  present  much  higher  among  white 
than  among  colored  races.    But  standards  of  liv- 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  45 

ing  depend  chiefly  upon  intelligence  and  resources. 
Within  any  and  every  race  there  are  great  individual 
variations  in  the  standards  of  living,  and  among 
the  intelligent  and  well-to-do  of  different  races 
these  standards  do  not  differ  greatly.  There  are 
few  things  which  all  types  of  mankind  learn  more 
quickly  and  willingly  than  to  adopt  higher  stand- 
ards of  living  when  they  have  the  opportunity, 
and  we  may  be  sure  that  this  will  apply  to  the 
colored  races  as  well  as  to  the  poorer  types  of  whites. 
One  of  the  great  dangers  which  confronts  the 
whole  world  is  that  standards  of  living,  with  de- 
mands for  luxuries  and  leisure,  are  increasing  mucn 
more  rapidly  than  intelligence  and  social  responsi- 
biUty. 

In  the  long  run,  supremacy  will  pass  in  every 
community,  nation,  or  race  to  the  more  intelligent, 
the  more  capable,  the  more  ethical,  rather  than  to 
the  best  livers.  It  is  only  when  high  standards 
of  living  spring  from  high  standards  of  intelligence 
and  social  ideals  that  they  are  not  a  menace  rather 
than  a  blessing.  Mere  love  of  luxury  will  sap  our 
civilization  as  it  did  that  of  ancient  Greece  and 
Rome,  and  if  it  should  affect  the  white  race  much 
more  than  the  colored  races,  then  indeed  should 
we  have  cause  to  fear  for  white  leadership  in  the 
world. 

After  all,  in  this  struggle  of  races  and  peoples, 
there  is  reason  to  believe  that  success  will  ulti- 


46  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

mately  rest  with  the  intelHgent,  the  capable,  and 
the  ethical,  and  the  attention  of  all  who  love  their 
race  should  be  centred  upon  raising  the  standards 
of  heredity,  of  education,  and  of  social  ideals  rather 
than  upon  standards  of  living.  I  see  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  in  these  respects  the  white  races  wiU 
fall  below  the  colored  ones.  The  greatest  danger 
which  faces  any  superior  race  is  that  of  amalgama- 
tion with  inferior  stock  and  the  consequent  lowering 
of  inherited  capacities. 


HYBRIDIZATION  OF  RACES 

Existing  races  have  arisen  by  mutation  and 
hybridization,  but  they  have  been  established  by 
the  isolation  of  certain  of  these  mutants  or  biotypes. 
The  present  tendency  to  the  breaking  down  of 
isolation  and  the  commingling  of  races  is  a  reversal 
of  the  processes  by  which  those  races  were  estab- 
lished. If  in  the  past  "God  made  of  one  blood 
all  nations  of  men,"  it  is  certain  that  at  present 
there  is  being  made  from  all  nations  one  blood. 
By  the  interbreeding  of  various  races  and  breeds 
there  has  come  to  be  a  complicated  intermixture 
of  racial  characters  in  almost  every  human  stock, 
and  this  process  is  going  on  to-day  more  rapidly 
and  extensively  than  ever  before.  Strictly  speak- 
ing, there  are  no  "pure"  lines  in  any  human  group. 
If  so-called  "pure"  EngHsh,  Irish,  Scotch,  Dutch, 
German,  Russian,  French,  Spanish,  or  ItaHan 
lines  are  traced  back  only  a  few  generations  they 
are  found  to  include  many  foreign  strains,  and  this 
is  especially  true  of  American  families,  even  those 
of  "purest"  blood. 

By  this  commingling  of  dijBferent  lines  many 
new  combinations  of  characters  are  produced  and 

47 


48  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

some  of  these  combinations  may  be  superior  to 
either  parental  type,  while  others  may  be  inferior. 
In  the  language  of  genetics  all  the  offspring  of 
parents  of  different  breeds  or  strains  are  "hy- 
brids," though  in  common  usage  this  term  is  ap- 
plied only  where  the  parents  belong  to  different 
species,  subspecies,  or  races.  Mongrels  or  hy- 
brids are  not  always  inferior  to  their  parents  nor 
are  these  terms  necessarily  ones  of  reproach,  as 
popular  usage  would  indicate.  Bateson  says  that 
most  of  the  new  varieties  of  cultivated  plants  are 
the  result  of  deliberate  crossing.  This  is  the  proc- 
ess which  Burbank  has  followed  with  such  wonder- 
ful success  in  his  experiments.  Where  two  breeds 
have  certain  qualities  which  are  desirable  and  others 
which  are  undesirable,  it  is  often  possible  by  cross- 
ing them  to  get  a  few  hybrids  in  which  the  good 
qualities  of  both  breeds  are  combined  and  the  bad 
ones  eliminated.  Many  species  of  domesticated 
animals  and  cultivated  plants  are  of  hybrid  origin; 
among  these  are  probably  dogs,  cats,  cattle,  horses, 
sheep,  pigs,  poultry;  wheat,  oats,  rice,  plums, 
cherries,  etc. 

We  are  quite  accustomed,  and  more  or  less 
reconciled,  to  the  intermingling  of  European  races, 
but  the  average  white  person,  at  least,  is  unable 
to  look  upon  the  commingHng  of  blood  of  the  pri- 
mary races  of  mankind  without  serious  misgivings 
as  to  its  effect  on  the  future  of  the  species.    Within 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  49 

certain  limits  cross-breeding  of  animals  and  plants 
seems  to  produce  increased  vigor,*  and  there  is  no 
doubt  that  highly  desirable  combinations  of  the 
characters  of  different  breeds  can  thus  be  made. 
It  is  generally  believed  by  Englishmen  that  the 
Anglo-Saxon,  Anglo-Norman,  Norman-French, 
Scotch-Irish  combinations  were  very  good  ones, 
and  Americans  would  point  to  the  good  results  of 
the  crossing  of  English,  Scotch,  Irish,  French, 
Dutch,  German,  and  Scandinavian  stocks. 

But  it  is  a  general  belief  that  the  crossing  of 
distinct  species  or  subspecies  does  not  lead  to 
improvement,  and  it  is  said  that  the  actual  results 
of  the  crossing  of  white,  black,  and  red  races  in 
South  America,  Mexico,  and  the  West  Indies,  or 
of  brown,  yellow,  and  white  races  in  Polynesia, 
has  not  produced  a  type  superior  to  the  best  of 
those  that  entered  into  the  combination.  Stoddard 
(p.  116)  says  that  "Most  informed  observers  agree 
that  the  mixed-bloods  of  Latin  America  are  dis- 
tinctly inferior  to  the  whites.  This  applies  to 
both  mestizos  and  mulattoes,  albeit  the  mestizo 
(the  cross  between  white  and  Indian)  seems  less 
inferior  than  the  mulatto— the  cross  between 
white  and  black.  As  for  the  zambo,  the  Indian- 
negro  cross,  everybody  is  agreed  that  it  is  a  very 
bad  one."  On  this  subject  he  quotes  Louis  Agassiz 
as  follows: — "Let  any  one  who  doubts  the  evil  of 

*  This  has  been  called  in  question  by  King,  East,  and  others. 


50  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

this  mixture  of  races,  and  is  inclined  from  mistaken 
philanthropy  to  break  down  all  barriers  between 
them,  come  to  Brazil.  He  cannot  deny  the  deteri- 
oration consequent  upon  the  amalgamation  of 
races,  more  wide-spread  here  than  in  any  country 
in  the  world,  and  which  is  rapidly  effacing  the  best 
qualities  of  the  white  man,  the  negro,  and  the 
Indian,  leaving  a  mongrel,  nondescript  type,  defi- 
cient in  physical  and  mental  energy." 

Nevertheless  it  must  be  remembered  that  in 
most  instances  the  white  blood,  at  least,  which 
entered  into  these  combinations  was  not  of  very 
high  quality,  and  it  is  hard  to  avoid  the  conclusion 
that  Mendelian  heredity,  which  is  operative  here 
as  everywhere  else,  will  lead  to  all  kinds  of  combi- 
nations— good,  bad,  and  indifferent — even  among 
the  offspring  of  the  same  parents,  and  much  more 
among  offspring  of  different  parents.  It  is  highly 
probable  that  while  some  of  these  hybrids  may  show 
all  the  bad  qualities  of  both  parents,  others  may 
show  the  good  qualities  of  both  and  indeed  in 
this  respect  resemble  the  children  in  any  pure- 
bred family.  But  it  is  practically  certain  that  the 
general  or  average  results  of  the  crossing  of  a  su- 
perior and  an  inferior  race  are  to  strike  a  balance 
somewhere  between  the  two.  This  is  no  contra- 
diction of  the  principles  of  Mendelian  inheritance 
but  rather  the  application  of  these  principles  to  a 
general  population.  The  general  eft'ect  of  the 
hybridization  of  races  cannot  fail  to  lead  to  a  lower- 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  51 

ing  of  the  qualities  of  the  higher  race  and  a  raising 
of  the  qualities  of  the  lower  one. 

Which  are  the  higher  and  which  the  lower  races 
of  mankind  must  depend  largely  upon  the  point 
of  view  and  the  qualities  under  consideration. 
No  race  has  a  monopoly  of  good  or  bad  qualities; 
all  that  can  be  said  is  that  certain  traits  are  more 
frequently  found  in  one  race  than  in  another. 

In  love  of  adventure,  of  discovery,  and  of  freedom 
within  the  limits  of  social  order  the  white  race  is 
probably  supreme,  and  these  qualities  under  favor- 
able environment  have  led  to  its  great  scientific, 
industrial,  and  political  development.  In  virility, 
conservatism,  and  reverence  for  social  obligations 
the  yellow  race,  as  a  whole,  is  probably  superior 
to  the  white.  If  the  white  race  worships  liberty, 
the  yellow  race  deifies  duty;  if  the  former  is  socially 
centrifugal,  the  latter  is  centripetal.  The  brown, 
red,  and  black  races  each  have  their  characteristic 
virtues  and  defects  which  have  become  proverbial. 
Every  race  has  contributed  something  of  value  to 
civilization,  though  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  white,  yellow,  and  brown  races  lead,  and  prob- 
ably in  the  order  named. 

No  doubt  if  all  the  good  qualities  of  different 
races  could  be  combined  and  all  of  the  bad  quali- 
ties eliminated  the  result  would  be  a  type  greatly 
superior  to  any  existing  race.  In  domestic  animals 
and  cultivated  plants  such  combinations  and  elimi- 
nations are  frequently  made,  and  if  a  higher  power 


52  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

should  deal  with  man  as  he  does  with  his  domesti- 
cated animals,  no  doubt  it  would  be  possible  to 
bring  about  similar  results  in  the  human  species. 

Even  if  we  are  horrified  by  the  thought,  we  can- 
not hide  the  fact  that  all  present  signs  point  to  an 
intimate  commingling  of  all  existing  human  types 
within  the  next  five  or  ten  thousand  years  at  most. 
Unless  we  can  re-establish  geographical  isolation 
of  races,  we  cannot  prevent  their  interbreeding. 
By  rigid  laws  excluding  immigrants  of  other  races, 
such  as  they  have  at  present  in  New  Zealand  and 
Australia,  it  may  be  possible  for  a  time  to  main- 
tain the  purity  of  the  white  race  in  certain  countries, 
but  with  the  constantly  increasing  intercommuni- 
cations between  all  lands  and  peoples  such  artificial 
barriers  will  probably  prove  as  ineffectual  in  the 
long  run  as  the  Great  Wall  of  China.  The  races  of 
the  world  are  not  drawing  apart  but  together,  and 
it  needs  only  the  vision  that  will  look  ahead  a  few 
thousand  years  to  see  the  blending  of  all  racial 
currents  into  a  common  stream. 

What  the  relative  contributions  of  existing  races 
to  this  composite  race  will  be  is  an  interesting 
speculation.  Relative  viability  and  fecundity  of 
different  races  and  hybrids  as  well  as  psychological 
affinities  and  antipathies  are  important  factors  in 
this  problem.  There  is  in  general  much  less  senti- 
ment for  racial  purity  on  the  part  of  colored  races 
than  in  the  case  of  the  white  race,  and  on  the  part 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  53 

of  white  men  than  of  white  women,  consequently 
white  blood  will  diffuse  more  rapidly  through  col- 
ored populations  than  colored  blood  through  the 
white.  More  important  still  is  the  fact  that  for 
centuries  to  come  Europe,  North  America,  and 
Australasia  will  continue  to  be  the  centres  of  the 
white  race;  China  and  Japan  of  the  yellow  race; 
and  Africa  of  the  black  race,  but  on  the  borders 
around  these  centres,  where  the  races  meet  and 
overlap,  there  will  be  miscegenation.  In  these 
centres  of  the  white,  yellow,  and  black  races  we  may 
assume  that  the  populations  will  for  a  long  time 
remain  predominantly  white,  yellow,  or  black,  but 
with  increasing  infiltration  of  foreign  blood.  The 
longer  this  segregation  can  be  maintained  the  larger, 
other  factors  being  equal,  will  become  the  ratio  of 
whites  to  other  races  and  the  greater  will  be  their 
contribution  to  the  composite  race.  Every  con- 
sideration should  lead  those  who  believe  in  the 
superiority  of  the  white  race  to  strive  to  preserve 
its  purity  and  to  establish  and  maintain  the  segre- 
gation of  the  races,  for  the  longer  this  is  maintained 
the  greater  the  preponderance  of  the  white  race 
will  be,  but  in  the  end  amalgamation  of  all  races 
in  all  parts  of  the  world  will  probably  be  as  complete 
as  in  the  case  of  Greeks,  Latins,  Saracens,  Nor- 
mans, and  Africans  in  Sicily  and  Southern  Italy. 


VI 

PRESENT  AND  FUTURE  EVOLUTION  OF 

MAN 

A.    Physical  Evolution 

Since  the  beginnings  of  recorded  history  there 
have  been  very  few  and  wholly  minor  evolutionary 
changes  in  the  body  of  man.  Chief  among  these 
are  the  decreasing  size  of  the  little  toe  and  perhaps 
a  corresponding  increase  in  the  size  of  the  great 
toe;  decreasing  size  and  strength  of  the  teeth, 
especially  of  the  wisdom  teeth;  and  probably  a 
general  lowering  of  the  perfection  of  sense-organs.* 

These  changes  are  in  the  main  degenerative  ones 
due  to  the  less  rigid  elimination  of  physical  im- 
perfections under  conditions  of  civiUzation  than  in 
a  state  of  barbarism  or  savagery.  Such  changes 
are  insignificant  as  compared  with  the  enormous 
changes  which  led  to  the  evolution  of  man  from 
prehuman  ancestors. 

Individual  variations  due  to  hybridization  or  to 
environmental  influences  are  always  present  but 
they  have  little  evolutionary  value.  By  hybridi- 
zation of  various  races  and  stocks  there  has  come 
to  be  a  complicated  intermixture  of  racial  charac- 

*See  Osborn,  H.  F.     "Contemporary  Evolution  of  Man." 

54 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  55 

ters;  new  combinations  of  characters  are  thus 
produced,  but  new  individual  characters  have  not 
been  evolved  by  hybridization.  By  changes  in 
environment  modifications  have  been  produced  in 
development  but  not  in  heredity,  these  are  fluctua- 
tions and  not  mutations. 

To  a  certain  extent  evolution  may  be  regarded  as 
a  response  of  the  organism  to  environment,  whether 
we  have  regard  to  the  origin  of  mutations  in  the 
germplasm  or  to  the  survival  of  mutations  after 
they  have  arisen.  But  in  the  case  of  man  the 
physical  environment  has  probably  far  less  evolu- 
tionary value  than  in  lower  animals,  for  by  means 
of  intelligence  man  is  able,  to  a  great  extent,  to 
control  his  environment.  In  cold  climates  he  does 
not  need  to  grow  a  thicker  coat  of  hair  in  order  to 
keep  from  freezing  to  death;  he  can  put  on  or  off 
heavier  clothing,  as  he  pleases;  he  can  even  change 
the  climate  of  his  residence  to  suit  his  needs. 
Shortage  of  one  kind  of  food  does  not  compel  him 
to  imdergo  changes  of  teeth  and  stomach  to  fit 
him  to  use  other  foods;  he  can  produce  more  food 
of  the  first  kind  or  can  so  change  and  modify  new 
kinds  of  food  that  the  old  digestive  system  can  deal 
with  them.  Therefore  to  the  extent  that  evolution 
depends  upon  changing  physical  environment,  man 
is  to  a  great  extent  removed  from  such  influences 
since  he  can  control  his  environment. 

Furthermore  the  greatest  of  the  directing  factors 


56  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

of  evolution,  namely  natural  selection,  or  the  sur- 
vival of  the  fittest  individuals,  has  been  largely 
nullified  in  civilized  society.  By  the  most  extraor- 
dinary efforts  we  manage  to  save  the  weak  and 
deformed  in  body,  the  feeble-minded  and  insane, 
the  evil  and  antisocial.  We  are  just  beginning  to 
realize  that  intelligent  human  selection  must  take 
the  place  of  natural  selection  and  that  the  most  un- 
fit must  be  prevented  from  perpetuating  their  kind; 
but  is  it  not  evident  that  the  stream  cannot  rise 
higher  than  its  source,  and  that  the  most  that  can 
be  expected  from  such  artificial  selection  is  that 
mankind  as  a  whole  shall  approach  somewhat 
nearer  to  the  level  of  the  best  individuals  of  the 
past  and  present  ? 

Eugenics 

Many  persons  who  recognize  that  human  evolu- 
tion is  not  progressing  favorably  look  to  eugenics, 
or  selective  mating,  as  the  best  available  method  of 
promoting  human  progress.  And  there  is  no  doubt 
that  if  the  same  methods  which  have  been  applied 
to  the  breeding  of  domestic  animals  and  plants 
could  be  applied  to  man,  many  important  improve- 
ments in  the  human  stock  could  be  effected. 
Chiefly  by  means  of  selective  breeding,  all  of  the 
best  types  of  domesticated  animals  and  cultivated 
plants  have  been  produced,  or  rather  made  up  and 
isolated,  for  the  breeder  can  only  wait  and  watch 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  57 

for  favorable  mutations  to  appear;  once  they  have 
appeared,  he  can  by  appropriate  cross-breeding 
combine  these  new  quahties  with  other  desirable 
ones,  and  after  he  has  made  up  a  desirable  combi- 
nation he  can,  by  close  inbreeding,  perpetuate  it 
and  thus  produce  a  new  breed  or  race. 

Mutations  of  many  sorts,  good,  bad,  and  indiffer- 
ent, are  occurring  in  the  human  race,  and  by  cross- 
breeding good  combinations  as  well  as  bad  ones  are 
produced.  Under  a  system  of  selective  mating 
comparable  to  that  practised  by  animal  and  plant 
breeders,  it  would  be  possible  to  perpetuate  the 
good  combinations  and  eliminate  the  bad  and  thus 
to  improve  the  human  breed,  but  this  would  in- 
volve such  changes  in  our  ideas  of  monogamy  and 
morality  as  are  scarcely  conceivable.  And  even 
such  a  thoroughgoing  system  of  eugenics  would  not 
really  lead  to  progressive  evolution,  with  the  forma- 
tion of  new  characters  and  the  emergence  of  a  new 
type  of  man,  but  only  to  new  combinations  of  exist- 
ing characters. 

One  of  the  serious  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  really 
thoroughgoing  system  of  eugenics  is  the  impossi- 
bility of  determining  what  combinations  are  really 
best  and  how  to  bring  them  about.  Until  we  know 
vastly  more  about  the  genesis  of  personality  than 
we  do  now,  positive  eugenics  must  be  a  relatively 
weak  and  blundering  procedure.  It  would  probab- 
ly have  robbed  the  world  of  some  of  its  greatest 


58  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

men,  whose  antecedents  were  most  unpromising. 
The  most  intelligent  eugenicist  cannot  tell  us  how 
to  get  the  best  results;  he  can  rarely,  if  ever,  get 
children  of  his  own  that  are  entirely  satisfactory; 
usually  the  most  that  he  can  do  is  to  tell  us  how 
to  avoid  the  worst  results.  As  Huxley  says:  "The 
points  of  a  good  or  bad  citizen  are  really  far  harder 
to  discern  than  those  of  a  puppy  or  a  short-horn 
calf.  ...  I  sometimes  wonder  whether  people 
who  talk  so  freely  about  extirpating  the  unfit,  ever 
dispassionately  consider  their  own  history.  Surely 
one  must  be  very  'fit'  indeed  not  to  know  of  an 
occasion,  or  perhaps  two,  in  one's  life  when  it  would 
have  been  only  too  easy  to  qualify  for  a  place 
among  the  unfit."* 

In  all  domestic  animals  and  cultivated  plants 
it  is  found  that  the  breeder  can  only  sort  out  and 
recombine  the  characters  which  are  given;  he 
cannot  make  new  characters  or  hereditary  factors, 
and  consequently  he  soon  reaches  the  limits  of  the 
possible  improvement  of  a  breed  and  must  then 
wait  until  a  new  variation  or  mutation  appears. 
Similarly  the  eugenicist,  even  if  he  could  control 
human  breeding  as  thoroughly  as  the  animal 
breeder,  could  not  expect  to  bring  about  indefinite 
improvement,  but  would  soon  reach  a  limit  in  every 
line  beyond  which  he  could  not  go  until  a  new 
mutation  furnished  the  material.    And  even  muta- 

*  Huxley,  T.  H.      "Evolution  and  Ethics,"  p.  39. 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  59 

tions  have  their  Hmits,  beyond  which  they  cannot 
go  without  upsetting  the  entire  organic  equiUbrium. 

It  is  conceivable,  though  not  probable,  that  the 
time  may  come  when  we  may  learn  how  to  produce 
human  mutations,  possibly  how  to  produce  good 
mutations.  If  this  should  ever  happen  we  should 
have  a  wonderful  opportunity  to  speed  up  and 
control  human  evolution.  But  at  present  this  is 
merely  a  dream,  and  there  is  no  likelihood  that  it 
will  ever  be  realized.  Important,  therefore,  as 
eugenics  is  in  bringing  about  better  combinations 
of  hereditary  traits,  it  does  not  hold  forth  the  prom- 
ise of  endless  progress. 

From  all  these  points  of  view  it  is  evident  that 
the  conception  of  unlimited  evolutionary  progress 
in  any  particular  line,  whether  among  plants, 
animals,  or  men  is  a  mere  chimera.  In  every  line 
of  progress  a  limit  is  sooner  or  later  reached,  beyond 
which  it  is  not  possible  to  go.  Further  progress, 
if  it  occurs  at  all,  must  be  in  other  lines. 

For  at  least  one  hundred  centuries  there  has  been 
no  notable  progress  in  the  evolution  of  the  human 
body.  The  limits  of  physical  evolution  have  appar- 
ently been  reached  in  the  most  perfect  specimens 
of  mankind.  The  fact  that  man  is  not  now  evolv- 
ing rapidly,  if  at  all,  is  often  taken  to  mean  that  he 
was  always  as  he  is  now,  that  he  never  did  evolve, 
but  the  evidence  is  all  against  this.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  said  by  those  who  believe  in  endless  prog- 


6o  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

ress  that  ten  thousand  years  is  entirely  too  brief 
a  time  in  which  to  look  for  marked  evolutionary 
advance,  and  we  are  admonished  to  remember  that 
evolution  is  slow  and  that  time  is  long;  but,  after 
all,  the  time  available  for  evolution  is  not  infinite, 
and  ten  thousand  years  representing  three  or  four 
hundred  human  generations  is  quite  long  enough 
to  reveal  any  marked  tendency  in  evolution. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  human  evolution 
has  halted,  either  temporarily  or  permanently, 
and  when  we  consider  the  fact  that  in  every  line 
of  evolution  progress  is  most  rapid  at  first  and  then 
slows  down  until  it  stops,  we  cannot  avoid  the  sus- 
picion that  in  those  lines  in  which  human  evolution 
has  gone  farthest  and  fastest  it  has  practically 
come  to  an  end.  At  least  we  may  affirm  that  there 
is  no  prospect  that  the  hand,  the  eye,  or  the  brain 
of  man  will  ever  be  much  more  complex  or  perfect 
than  at  present.  It  is,  of  course,  possible  that  the 
hand  of  man  might  evolve  into  a  more  perfect 
climbing,  swimming,  or  flying  organ,  but  such  spe- 
cialization would  unfit  it  to  do  the  many  duties 
which  it  now  performs  and  upon  which  human 
progress  has  so  largely  depended.  It  is  possible 
that  man  might  develop  the  telescopic  vision  of 
an  eagle  or  the  microscopic  vision  of  a  fly,  but 
what  advantage  would  there  be  in  such  specializa- 
tion when  by  means  of  his  inventions  he  can  have 
both  telescopic  and  microscopic  vision  far  better 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  6i 

than  any  other  creature  in  the  world  possesses  ?  It 
is,  of  course,  possible  that  the  brain  of  man  may 
undergo  further  evolution  in  the  future,  just  as  it  is 
possible  that  the  elephant  may  evolve  a  longer  trunk 
or  the  giraffe  a  longer  neck.  But  the  size  of  the 
-human  brain  has  not  increased  since  the  times  of 
the  Cro-Magnon  race,  say  20,000  years  ago,  and  the 
great  prevalence  of  nervous  disorders  in  the  most 
highly  intelligent  classes  of  the  present  day  indi- 
cates that  the  nervous  system  has  already  de- 
veloped to  a  point  where  it  is  getting  out  of  balance 
with  the  other  vital  functions.  In  every  line  of 
progressive  evolution  there  comes  a  time  when 
specialization  can  go  no  farther  without  interfering 
with  the  harmonious  interrelation  of  parts  and  thus 
breaking  down  co-operation. 

In  most  respects  man  is  a  generalized  rather  than 
a  highly  specialized  type  of  vertebrate,  as  is  shown 
by  his  hands,  feet,  limbs,  teeth,  food,  digestive 
system,  and  sense-organs,  and  there  is  no  evidence 
that  in  the  future  he  will  become  more  highly 
specialized  in  these  regards;  on  the  contrary,  so 
far  as  these  animal  functions  are  concerned,  present 
tendencies  in  human  evolution  seem  in  the  main  to 
be  making  for  a  simpler  and  more  generalized  or- 
ganism, as  is  shown  in  the  simplification  of  many 
organs  and  systems,  the  progressive  degeneration 
of  certain  parts,  and  the  presence  of  many  rudi- 
mentary structures. 


62  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

However  in  the  structures  and  functions  of  the 
human  brain  progressive  evolution  has  gone  farther 
than  in  the  case  of  any  other  creature,  and  this 
combination  of  a  highly  specialized  brain  with 
other  organs  of  a  more  generalized  type  has  been 
of  the  greatest  advantage  in  human  evolution,  for 
it  has  made  possible  at  the  same  time  unequalled 
intelligence  and  remarkable  plasticity  and  adapta- 
bility of  bodily  functions. 

I  suppose  that  from  the  evolutionary  point  of 
view  the  most  perfect  type  of  man  would  be  one 
in  which  the  brain  had  reached  the  highest  possible 
stage  of  differentiation  and  in  which  the  rest  of 
the  body  remained  in  a  relatively  generahzed  con- 
dition. H.  G.  Wells,  who  was  a  zoologist  before  he 
became  a  writer  of  fiction  and  history,  represents 
the  Martians,  who  are  often  imagined  to  have 
evolved  farther  than  man,  as  having  enormous 
brains  and  undifferentiated  bodies,  little  more  than 
generalized  protoplasm.  But  man  requires  diges- 
tive, circulatory,  respiratory,  and  reproductive 
systems  for  his  survival  as  well  as  a  nervous  system, 
and  if  the  latter  becomes  so  developed  that  it 
destroys  the  proper  balance,  all  comes  to  an  end. 
The  great  increase  in  nervous  and  mental  disorders 
and  the  increasing  sterility  of  the  intellectual 
classes  warn  us  that  for  the  present  at  least  the 
evolution  of  the  brain  and  nervous  system  of  man 
has  practically  reached  its  limit. 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITiES  63 

Metchnikoff*  has  pointed  out  many  disharmo- 
nies or  unfitnesses  in  the  human  organization  affect- 
ing digestion,  reproduction,  and  self-preservation; 
indeed  all  organs  and  functions  of  the  human  body 
may  show  these  disharmonies.  All  of  pathology 
and  most  of  the  subject-matter  of  medicine  is  con- 
cerned with  such  disharmonies,  and  they  are  found 
not  merely  in  man's  bodily  structures  and  functions 
but  also  in  his  mental  and  social  life.  Indeed  such 
disharmonies  are  illustrations  of  the  fact  that 
nowhere  in  the  living  world  are  adaptations  perfect 
or  complete,  and  although  the  worst  failures  are 
quickly  eliminated,  so  that  there  is  a  tendency  for 
adaptations  to  become  more  and  more  perfect,  yet 
from  a  variety  of  causes,  failures  of  old  adaptations 
continue  to  occur  and  new  environmental  condi- 
tions arise  to  which  new  adaptations  must  be 
made. 

While  it  is  true  that  even  the  oldest  and  most 
complete  adaptations  are  rarely,  if  ever,  ideally 
perfect,  it  is  especially  in  the  more  recent  adapta- 
tions to  new  conditions  of  life  that  failure  of  adjust- 
ment is  most  evident.  In  the  case  of  man  there 
are  partial  failures  of  adjustment  to  even  so  ancient 
a  condition  as  the  erect  posture,  and  in  the  case  of 
more  recent  changes  of  condition  or  environment, 
such  as  modern  food,  clothing,  housing,  and  indus- 
try, or  the  parasitic  and  germ  diseases  that  accom- 

*  Metchnikoff,  E.    "The  Nature  of  Man,"  New  York,  1903. 


64  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

pany  civilization  and  dense  populations,  such  fail- 
ures or  disharmonies  are  much  more  evident.  If 
the  environment  should  remain  fairly  constant,  it 
is  probable  that  the  human  organism  would  in 
time  adjust  itself  to  these  new  conditions.  There  is 
evidence  of  an  increasing  immunity  of  civilized 
races  to  certain  diseases,  and  in  time,  if  natural 
selection  were  allowed  to  work  without  interference, 
it  is  probable,  that  complete  immunity  to  some  of 
these  diseases  might  become  general.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  modern  medicine  is  finding  ways  to 
control  and  even  eliminate  certain  of  these  diseases 
in  a  way  much  more  rapid  and  less  destructive  to 
human  life  than  is  natural  selection.  Here  again,  as 
in  so  many  other  instances,  intelligence  is  replac- 
ing the  blind  forces  of  nature,  and  human  evolution 
is  progressing  not  so  much  by  adaptation  of  the 
organism  to  the  environment  as  of  the  environment 
to  the  organism. 

The  prolongation  of  individual  human  lives  by 
means  of  medicine,  surgery,  and  general  scientific 
knowledge  has  led  many  persons  to  hope  that  the 
present  maximum  length  of  life  may  be  greatly 
extended  in  the  future  so  that  men  may  once  more 
reach  the  reputed  ages  of  the  patriarchs.  But  the 
saving  of  individual  lives  has  not  extended  the 
maximum  length  of  life.  The  oldest  individuals 
to-day  are  no  older  than  those  of  prescientific 
times.  The  average  life  of  the  race  has  been  length- 
ened chiefly  through  the  reduction  of  infant  mor- 


PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES  65 

tality.  But  since  it  has  been  proven  that  longevity 
is  hereditary,  it  may  well  be  that  the  artificial 
prolongation  of  the  lives  of  the  hereditarily  weak 
and  short-lived  may  actually  reduce  the  natural 
longevity  of  the  race  as  a  whole. 

In  any  event  there  is  no  probability  that  science 
will  greatly  extend  the  present  maximum  length 
of  life,  and  there  is  no  basis  whatever  for  the  hope 
which  is  sometimes  expressed  that  it  will  ultimately 
banish  death  altogether.  How  fortunate  this  is 
will  be  appreciated  when  it  is  recalled  that  without 
death  and  the  succession  of  generations  there  could 
be  little  or  no  evolution  and  that  under  present 
conditions  immortality  of  the  body  would  be  the 
greatest  possible  hindrance  to  human  progress. 

By  eugenics  and  euthenics  the  general  level  of 
physical  development  of  man  may  be  improved 
just  as  it  has  been  in  many  domestic  animals; 
many  diseases  may  be  eliminated  and  immunity  to 
others  may  be  increased,  feeble-bodiedness  and 
feeble-mindedness  may  disappear  and  the  race  as 
a  whole  may  be  made  more  hardy;  but  there  are 
no  indications  that  future  man  will  be  much  more 
perfect  in  body  than  the  most  perfect  individuals 
of  the  present,  or  than  the  most  perfect  men  and 
women  in  the  days  of  Phidias  and  Praxiteles. 

B.    Intellectual  Evolution 

No  one  can  doubt  that  there  has  been  a  wonder- 
ful development  of  intellect  throughout  the  course 


66  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

of  past  evolution.  Among  the  vertebrates  the 
class  of  fishes  which  came  first  in  the  course  of 
evolution  is  least  intelligent,  while  birds  and  mam- 
mals which  came  last  are  most  intelligent.  And 
of  all  orders  of  mammals  the  higher  Primates,  which 
are  the  most  recent  in  origin,  show  the  greatest 
intelligence.  Similarly  in  the  case  of  man,  there  is 
abundant  evidence  that  there  has  been  growth  of 
intelligence  from  the  earliest  to  the  latest  t3^es  and 
that  this  development  has  gone  farther  in  some 
races  than  in  others. 

Furthermore,  there  is  considerable  evidence  that 
even  in  the  most  intelligent  races  and  individuals 
there  is  still  much  room  for  intellectual  growth; 
and  when  we  consider  the  great  mass  of  irrational 
and  emotional  mankind,  we  are  impressed  with  the 
thought  that  the  race  as  a  whole  is  just  emerging 
from  unreason  and  that  instinct  and  emotion  are 
still  the  masters  of  life. 

Surely  there  is  great  room  for  improvement  here, 
but  so,  also,  is  there  room  for  intellectual  improve- 
ment in  monkeys  and  dogs  and  all  other  animals 
below  man.  The  fact  that  there  is  room  for  im- 
provement by  no  means  signifies  that  improvement 
will  take  place.  Just  as  in  the  case  of  physical 
evolution,  so  here,  also,  there  are  limits  beyond 
which  intellectual  evolution  cannot  go,  and  these 
limits  are  far  short  of  ideal  perfection.  The  rec- 
ord of  the  intellectual  development  of  mankind 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  67 

during  the  historic  period  may  seem  to  refute  this 
conclusion  and  to  prove  that  even  if  men  aire  not 
growing  more  perfect  physically  they  are  growing 
more  perfect  intellectually.  Let  us  examine  some- 
what critically  this  claim. 

We  certainly  know  more  things  than  the  ancients 
did,  and  we  are  proud  to  think  that 

"The  thoughts  of  men  are  widened  with  the  process  of  the 

suns." 

But  it  is  most  important  to  distinguish  between 
knowledge  and  intellect,  between  things  known  and 
the  capacity  for  knowing. 

By  means  of  language,  tradition,  and  writing 
the  experiences  of  past  generations  can  be  handed 
on  to  present  and  future  ones,  and  thus  each 
generation  may  receive  the  knowledge  accumu- 
lated throughout  the  past.  In  this  sense  we  are 
"the  heirs  of  all  the  ages." 

Knowledge  is  certainly  growing,  but  is  intellec- 
tual capacity  increasing  ?  Does  any  one  think  that 
in  the  past  two  or  three  thousand  years  there  has 
been  any  increase  in  human  intellect  comparable 
with  the  increase  in  knowledge?  Do  the  best 
minds  of  to-day  excel  the  minds  of  Socrates  and 
Plato  and  Aristotle?  On  the  contrary,  it  is  the 
opinion  of  those  who  have  studied  the  subject 
most  that  no  modern  race  of  men  is  the  equal 
intellectually  of  the  ancient  Greek  race. 


68  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

In  the  two  centuries  between  500  and  300  B.  C.  the  small 
and  relatively  barren  country  of  Attica,  with  an  area  and 
total  population  about  equal  to  that  of  the  present  State  of 
Rhode  Island,  but  with  less  than  one-fifth  as  many  free 
persons,  produced  at  least  25  illustrious  men.  Among 
statesmen  and  commanders  there  were:  Miltiades,  Them- 
istocles,  Aristides,  Cimon,  Pericles,  Phocion;  among  poets, 
^schylus,  Euripides,  ^Sophocles,  Aristophanes;  among 
philosophers  and  men  of  science,  Socrates,  Plato,  Aristotle, 
Demetrius,  Theophrastus;  among  di^hitects  and  artists, 
Ictinus,  Phidias,  Praxiteles,  Polygnotus;  ^piong  historians, 
Thucydides  and  Xenophon;  among  orators,  ^schines,  De- 
mosthenes, Isocrates,  Lysias. 

In  this  small  country  in  the  space  of  two  centuries  there 
appeared  such  a  galaxy  of  illustrious  men  as  has  never  been 
found  on  the  whole  earth  in  any  two  centuries  since  that 
time.  Galton  concludes  that  the  average  ability  of  the 
Athenian  race  of  that  period  was,  on  the  lowest  estimate, 
as  much  greater  than  that  of  the  English  race  of  the  present 
day  as  the  latter  is  above  that  of  the  African  negro.* 

There  has  been  no  notable  progress  in  the  intel- 
lectual capacity  of  man  in  the  past  two  or  three 
thousand  years,  and  it  seems  probable  that  the 
limits  of  intellectual  evolution  have  been  reached 
in  the  greatest  minds  of  the  race.  Even  in  the  most 
distant  future  there  may  never  appear  greater 
geniuses  than  Socrates,  Plato,  Aristotle,  Shakes- 
peare, Newton,  Darwin. 

Undoubtedly  eugenics  and  education  can  do 
much  to  raise  the  intellectual  level  of  the  general 
mass,  but  they  cannot  create  a  new  order  of  in- 

*  Conklin.     "Heredity  and  Environment,"  1920,  p.  276. 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  6.9 

tellect.  Increasing  size  of  brain  and  complexity  of 
nervous  organization  lead  to  mental  and  physical 
instability  and  disharmony,  and  the  great  increase 
in  nervous  and  mental  diseases  in  modern  life  warns 
us  that  there  is  a  limit  to  intellectual  evolution. 

The  brain  has  its  limits  as  a  storehouse,  and  it 
necessarily  follows  that  with  knowledge  continu- 
ally increasing  and  intellectual  capacity  remaining 
stationary  each  individual  mind  can  take  in  only 
a  small  portion  of  the  sum  of  human  knowledge. 
In  this  age  intellectual  specialization  is  absolutely 
necessary.  There  can  never  again  be  an  Aristotle, 
nor  even  a  Descartes  or  Humboldt.  Progress  in 
intellectual  evolution,  no  less  than  in  physical, 
lies  in  the  direction  of  increasing  specialization  and 
co-operation,  but  this  progress  is  no  longer  taking 
place  within  the  individual  but  in  the  speciahzation 
and  co-operation  of  many  individuals.  The  intel- 
lectual evolution  of  the  individual  has  virtually 
come  to  an  end,  but  the  intellectual  evolution  of 
groups  of  individuals  is  only  at  its  beginning. 

C.    Social  Evolution 

But  if  the  evolution  of  the  human  individual  has 
come  to  an  end,  certainly  the  evolution  of  human 
society  has  not.  In  social  evolution  a  new  path  of 
progress  has  been  found  the  end  of  which  no  one 
can  foresee. 

Evolution  has  progressed  from  one-celled  organ- 


70  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

isms  to  many-celled,  from  small  and  simple  organ- 
isms to  larger  and  more  complex  ones.  By  the  union 
of  individuals  into  families  and  tribes  and  nations, 
stiU  larger  and  more  complex  units  of  organization 
were  formed,  until  now,  by  intelligent  human  co- 
operation, we  have  governmental  units  which  in- 
clude hundreds  of  millions  of  men,  and  we  are  on 
the  eve  of  bringing  together  into  some  form  of 
league  or  federation  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth. 

Three  main  stages  in  the  past  evolution  of  human 
culture  (the  material  aspect  of  which  may  be  de- 
fined as  knowledge  of,  and  control  over,  environ- 
ment) are  generally  recognized,  viz.:  Savagery, 
Barbarism,  and  Civilization.  The  lowest  stages  of 
human  culture,  as  contrasted  with  prehuman  con- 
ditions, begin  with  the  fashioning  of  crude  stone 
implements  and  with  the  use  of  fire.  Middle  stages 
are  marked  by  the  making  of  beautiful  stone  imple- 
ments and  by  the  introduction  of  the  use  of  copper 
and  bronze.  The  highest  stage  is  characterized 
by  the  use  of  iron,  the  invention  of  writing  and  all 
that  goes  with  this,  and  by  increasing  knowledge 
of,  and  control  over,  the  forces  of  nature.  Possibly 
future  historians  may  record  that  super-civiliza- 
tion began  with  the  end  of  wars  and  the  co-operation 
of  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth.  At  least  there  is 
every  evidence  that  human  culture  is  still  advancing 
and  that  the  end  is  not  yet  in  sight. 

Different  civilizations  of  the  past  have  had  their 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  71 

birth,  maturity,  and  death,  and  our  civilization  may 
possibly  follow  a  similar  course,  but  as  generation 
follows  generation,  so  one  civilization  gives  birth 
to  another.  After  civilization  had  once  appeared 
it  was  never  entirely  lost  from  all  the  earth.  It 
decayed  in  Egypt  and  Babylonia,  but  the  torch 
lighted  there  was  caught  up  by  Phoenicia,  Greece, 
and  Rome,  and  when  these  went  down  the  flame 
was  passed  on  to  other  lands  and  peoples. 

In  the  whole  of  this  evolution  of  culture  each 
age  or  people  builds  upon  preceding  ones,  and  prog- 
ress has  been  the  result  of  co-operative  effort. 
Each  great  advance  was  due  to  the  discoveries  of 
one,  or  at  most  of  a  few  gifted  men,  but  these  dis- 
coveries could  not  have  been  made  except  for  the 
work  which  had  gone  before.  Probably  the  great- 
est genius  of  this  or  of  any  former  age,  if  thrown 
entirely  upon  his  own  resources  without  the  in- 
struction, experience,  or  achievements  of  others  to 
guide  and  help  him,  would  be  unable  to  invent  a 
phonetic  alphabet,  to  smelt  iron  ore,  to  make 
bronze  implements,  or  even  to  start  a  fire  by  arti- 
ficial means.  Increasing  knowledge  of,  and  control 
over,  nature  is  the  result  of  the  labors  of  countless 
individuals,  the  preservation  of  these  results  and 
the  handing  down  of  them  to  successive  generations. 
The  individual  man  has  not  grown  more  perfect 
physically  or  intellectually,  but  society  has  ad- 
vanced from  age  to  age  because  it  has  profited  by 


72  PATHS  AND   POSSIBILITIES 

experiences  of  the  past.  Those  who  would  wipe  out 
present  institutions  and  throw  away  all  the  dearly 
bought  experiences  of  the  past  would  not  only 
destroy  the  possibilities  of  progress  but  they  would 
wreck  civilization  and  reduce  man  to  savagery. 

At  present  social  evolution  is  proceeding  at  a 
rate  which  is  amazing  if  not  alarming.  All  kinds 
of  variations  and  mutations  of  the  social  organiza- 
tion are  occurring.  Whole  nations  are  making 
the  most  stupendous  experiments,  some  of  which 
are  bound  to  end  disastrously,  but  if  only  we  have 
the  intelligence  to  learn  by  the  experience  of  others, 
and  the  wisdom  to  preserve  the  good  results  of 
these  experiments  and  to  eliminate  the  bad,  social 
progress  will  be  certain  and  rapid. 

The  fact  that  the  evolution  of  human  society 
and  of  human  inventions  has  gone  forward  so  rapid- 
ly that  every  one  can  see  the  great  progress  made  in 
his  own  lifetime,  led  Samuel  Butler*  and  certain 
followers  of  hisf  to  the  conclusion  that  social  and 
intellectual  evolution  is  the  cause  of  physical 
evolution. 

Butler  observed  that  evolution  in  man  does  not 
take  place  to  any  important  extent  in  his  body 
but  that  it  is  proceeding  with  great  rapidity  in  the 
tools,  weapons,  and  machines  which  man  uses  and 


*  Butler,  Samuel.     "Erewhon,"  London,  1908. 
t  Darbishire,  A,  D.     "Introduction  to  a  Biology,"   New  York, 
1917. 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  73 

which  are,  in  his  words,  "limbs  which  are  loose 
and  lie  about  detached."  Intellect  and  invention 
are  the  motive  power  in  this  form  of  evolution,  and 
he  assumes  that  the  same  may  be  true  of  all  evolu- 
tion, physical  and  social  as  well  as  intellectual. 
Others  maintain  that  ''cell  intelligence,"  which 
is  assumed  to  be  present  in  all  protoplasm,  is  the 
cause  of  all  forms  of  evolution.* 

Such  a  conception  not  only  confuses  the  different 
lines  of  evolution  and  their  causes,  but  it  really 
denies  all  the  facts  and  evidences  in  the  case  by 
putting  the  highest  and  latest  product  of  the  proc- 
ess into  its  earliest  and  most  elemental  stages. 
It  is  not  a  theory  of  evolution  but  rather  one  of 
involution  or  creation;  it  is  not  a  new  conception 
of  life  and  its  origin  but  the  oldest  known  concep- 
tion. 

Dissatisfaction  with  current  views  must  be  great 
indeed,  and  the  evidence  against  those  views  and 
in  favor  of  the  ancient  ones  must  be  very  convinc- 
ing to  justify  such  a  reaction.  And  yet  almost  no 
evidence  is  presented  against  the  generally  accepted 
view  and  in  favor  of  the  ancient  one.  Such  essays 
evidently  owe  their  origin  to  emotion  rather  than 
to  reason,  to  sentiment  rather  than  science;  they 
are  based  upon  desire  rather  than  evidence,  and 
they  appeal  especially  to  those  who  are  able  to 

*  Quevli,  N.     "Cell  Intelligence  the  Cause  of  Evolution,"   Min- 
neapolis, 1916. 


74  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

believe  what  they  desire  to  believe  and  who  are 
accustomed  to  say  of  evolution,  ''I  prefer  to  trace 
my  origin  to  the  Garden  of  Eden  rather  than  to  a 
zoological  garden," — as  if  it  were  possible  for  a  ra- 
tional being  to  believe  anything  he  prefers  to  believe  ! 

De  Vries,  Morgan,  and  many  others  have  shown 
that  physical  evolution  proceeds  by  sudden  changes 
known  as  mutations,  rather  than  by  minute  and 
continuous  variations,  and  de  Vries  supposes  that 
there  are  periods  of  mutation  alternating  with 
periods  of  relative  stability.  The  present  seems  to 
be  a  mutation  period  in  the  evolution  of  human 
society.  One  often  hears  the  expression  that  cer- 
tain social  changes  must  come  ''by  evolution  or  by 
revolution."  But  there  is  such  a  thing  as  evolution 
by  revolution,  and  it  seems  probable  that  to-day 
we  are  witnessing  this  process  in  human  society. 
Whether  such  evolution  is  going  forward  or  back- 
ward the  future  only  will  reveal. 

The  rapidity  of  social  evolution  as  contrasted 
with  the  slowness  of  physical  evolution  is  probably 
due  to  the  fact  that  changes  in  gemiplasm  occur 
much  more  slowly  than  changes  in  habits.  In 
intelligent  society  past  experiences  are  transmitted 
to  future  generations,  each  generation  standing  on 
the  shoulders,  as  it  were,  of  the  preceding  one, 
whereas  the  physical  man  begins  his  development 
anew  in  each  generation  from  the  germ  cells,  and  if 
he  inherits  any  bodily  features  acquired  by  the 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  75 

experiences  of  his  ancestors — a  thing  which  seems 
most  doubtful — they  are  very  few.  On  the  other 
hand,  individual  experiences  are  more  quickly 
impressed  upon  the  intellect  than  upon  the  body 
or  the  instincts.  Intelligence  is  a  great  time-saver, 
as  contrasted  with  "trial  and  error."  Changes  in 
behavior  due  to  changes  in  reflexes  or  instincts  are 
almost,  if  not  quite,  as  slow  as  changes  in  germplasm 
itself,  but  changes  due  to  intelligence  may  take 
place  with  "the  rapidity  of  thought";  and  where 
such  changes  can  be  transmitted  by  "social  inheri- 
tance" to  the  next  generation,  as  is  true  of  human 
experiences  and  learning  and  institutions,  progress 
is  most  rapid.  In  this  respect  social  progress  is 
entirely  comparable  to  ontogeny,  or  the  develop- 
ment of  the  individual,  where  each  step  leads  to 
the  next  and  where  every  later  stage  is  built  di- 
rectly on  an  earlier  one.  Indeed,  what  we  call 
social  evolution  in  any  single  race  or  people  is 
really  the  individual  development  or  ontogeny  of 
that  particular  society. 

Evolution  has  progressed  from  amoeba  to  man; 
from  reflexes  to  instincts,  intelligence,  and  reason; 
from  the  sohtary  individual  to  the  family,  the 
tribe,  the  modern  state,  and,  in  spite  of  narrow- 
minded  and  reactionary  politicians,  we  or  our 
descendants  will  yet  see  the  whole  human  race 
brought  together  into  a  Society  of  Nations,  a 
"Federation  of  the  World." 


76  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

Just  as  there  are  many  disharmonies  or  failures 
of  adaptation  in  the  human  body  and  mind,  so,  also, 
there  are  many  disharmonies  in  human  society. 
In  particular  there  are  the  conflicts  of  the  social 
and  antisocial  instincts,  of  selfishness  and  altruism, 
justice  and  injustice,  love  and  hate,  peace  and  war; 
there  is  lacking  in  contemporary  society  that  degriee 
of  specialization  which  would  enable  each  individual 
to  find  the  work  and  place  where  he  would  be  most 
useful  and  there  is  a  lamentable  failure  of  co-opera- 
tion between  individuals,  classes,  nations,  and 
races. 

But  throughout  the  course  of  evolution  there  has 
been  a  continual  elimination  of  the  least  fit  and  a 
survival  of  the  fit,  and  in  the  long  run  we  may  expect 
natural  selection  to  lead  to  the  elimination  of  the 
antisocial  and  to  the  increase  of  social  specializa- 
tion and  co-operation.  Indeed,  this  is  no  mere 
matter  of  faith,  but  is  a  process  which  is  going  on 
more  rapidly  to-day  than  ever  before  in  human 
history.  The  elimination  of  the  socially  unfit  will 
ultimately  give  the  world  to  the  fit. 

The  great  goal  toward  which  the  human  race  is 
moving  is  the  rational  organization  of  society. 
The  societies  of  ants,  bees,  and  termites;  of  fishes, 
birds,  and  gregarious  mammals  are  based  wholly 
upon  instincts,  and  while  some  of  these  societies 
are  extraordinarily  perfect,  owing  to  the  long  and 
constant  action  of  natural  selection,  they  are  rela- 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  77 

lively  inflexible  and  unfitted  to  sudden  changes 
of  environment.  Human  society  is  less  perfectly 
adapted  to  a  particular,  narrow  environment  than 
that  of  some  social  insects,  but,  thanks  to  intelli- 
gence and  the  capacity  of  learning  by  experience, 
it  is  vastly  more  plastic  and  perfectible. 

The  short  and  narrow  view  of  human  society 
and  history  is  often  discouraging  and  at  times  it 
seems  desperate,  but  the  long  view  is  more  hopeful. 
The  human  race  has  a  surprising  amount  of  resili- 
ency and  adaptabiHty,  it  has  passed  through  many 
terrible  crises,  many  experiments  have  proved 
colossal  failures,  many  nations  and  civilizations 
have  gone  down  in  the  wreckage  of  time,  and  yet 
the  race  survives  and  society  moves  forward.  Our 
cherished  institutions  and  social  organizations  may 
be  only  temporary,  but  the  records  of  social  evolu- 
tion show  that  the  world  moves  forward  and  justi- 
fies the  faith  that  mankind  will  ultimately  reach 
the  goal  of  a  really  rational  organization  of  human 
society. 

D.    Man's  Conquest  of  Nature 

The  evolution  of  man  is  no  longer  limited  to  his 
body  or  mind,  nor  even  to  society,  but  by  adding 
to  his  own  powers  the  forces  of  nature,  man  has 
entered  upon  a  new  path  of  progress.  The  differ- 
entiations of  various  members  of  a  colony  of  ants 
or  bees  are  limited  to  their  bodies  and  are  fixed  and 


78  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

irreversible;  but  in  human  society  differentiations 
are  no  longer  confined  to  the  bodies  of  individuals 
but  have  become,  as  it  were,  extra-corporeal. 

By  this  control  over  nature  man  has  taken  into 
his  evolution  the  whole  of  his  environment.  Al- 
though he  is  not  as  strong  as  the  elephant  nor  as 
deft  as  the  spider  nor  as  swift  as  the  antelope  nor  as 
powerful  in  the  water  as  the  whale  or  in  the  air  as 
the  eagle,  yet  by  his  control  of  the  forces  of  nature 
outside  of  his  body  he  can  excel  all  animals  in 
strength  and  delicacy  of  movement,  in  speed  and 
power  on  land,  in  water,  and  in  air. 

This  new  path  of  progress  is  in  all  respects  the 
most  important  which  has  ever  been  discovered 
by  organisms,  and  no  one  can  foresee  the  end  of  this 
process  of  annexing  to  our  own  powers  the  illimitable 
forces  of  the  universe. 


VII 

WILL  THERE  BE  A  HIGHER  ANIMAL 
THAN  MAN? 

There  is  no  probability  that  a  higher  animal 
than  man  will  ever  appear  on  the  earth,  and  the 
only  reason  for  surmising  that  other  species  of  the 
genus  Homo  may  appear  in  the  future  is  the  fact 
that  there  have  been  species  in  the  past  which  do 
not  exist  at  present.  These  prehistoric  species  have 
everywhere  been  replaced  by  the  existing  species, 
perhaps  because  they  were  intellectually  inferior. 
It  is  possible,  of  course,  that  similar  causes  may  lead 
to  the  elimination  of  the  present  species,  but  this 
does  not  seem  probable  for  the  following  reasons: 

(i)  All  races  of  man  may  and  do  interbreed, 
o^ving  to  fertility  inter  se  and  to  the  lack  of  geo- 
graphical isolation;  consequently  there  is  a  growing 
tendency  to  the  breaking  down  of  racial  isolation 
and  to  the  hybridization  of  existing  races.  This  is 
clearly  shown  in  all  countries  where  races,  even  the 
most  distinct,  have  been  brought  together,  as  in 
North  and  South  America,  the  West  Indies,  Aus- 
tralasia, Polynesia,  Asia,  and  Africa.  Such  hy- 
bridization may  possibly  lead  to  the  production  of 
new  types  or  mutants,  but  these  would  probably 

79 


8o  PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES 

be  "swamped"  and  lost  unless  they  were  isolated. 
All  present  signs  point  to  an  intimate  commingling 
of  all  existing  human  types  within  the  next  few 
thousand  years  at  most.  The  breaking  down  of 
geographical  and  racial  isolation  will  restrict  further 
race  differentiation,  and  this  will  probably  work 
against  the  evolution  of  a  still  higher  race.  Even 
if  new  races  may  be  developed  by  psychological  or 
social  selection  there  is  no  likeUhood  that  new 
species  will  thus  arise  which  will  supplant  the  ex- 
isting species. 

(2)  The  development  of  moral  and  social  ideals 
of  equal  justice  for  all  people  will  prevent  the  ex- 
termination of  inferior  races,  and  democratic  ideals 
of  self-government  and  majority  rule  will  probably 
prevent  even  the  merciful  elimination  of  all  except 
the  most  perfect  types.  The  majority  cannot  be 
expected  to  decree  its  own  effacement;  the  most 
that  can  be  expected  is  that  the  majority  will  elim- 
inate from  reproduction  only  the  most  inferior  and 
defective  individuals.  By  this  means  the  stand- 
ards of  the  race  may  be  preserved  at  the  present 
level,  but  they  cannot  be  greatly  advanced.  No 
great  improvement  in  domesticated  animals  or 
plants  would  be  possible  if  breeders  were  able  to 
eliminate  only  the  most  inferior  individuals,  and 
the  same  will  certainly  be  true  of  human  breeds. 
There  is  no  present  indication,  therefore,  that  a  new 
and  higher  species  of  man  will  develop  on  the  earth, 


PATHS  AND  POSSIBILITIES  8 1 

and  there  is  no  probability  that  some  other  genus 
or  class  or  phylum  may  give  rise  to  an  animal 
physically,  intellectually,  and  socially  superior  to 
man. 

It  is  possible,  but  not  probable,  that  the  entire 
human  species  may  become  extinct  in  advance  of 
other  higher  animals;  but  even  if  this  should  hap- 
pen, from  what  other  source  could  a  superior  animal 
arise?  No  other  animal  approaches  man  in  intel- 
lectual capacity,  upon  which  depend  the  rational 
organization  of  society  and  the  conquest  of  all 
nature. 

However  imperfect,  irrational,  and  antisocial 
mankind  may  be;  however  much  we  may  laugh  or 
weep  over  his  simian  characteristics  and  at  times 
sympathize  with  Mark  Twain's  comments  on 
"the  damned  human  race,"  we  may  feel  confident 
that  in  the  long  ages  of  future  evolution  no  other 
greatly  superior  animal  will  appear  upon  this  planet. 
If  a  superior  species  is  to  appear  it  must  come  from 
human  stock. 


II 

EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 


THE  BIOLOGICAL  FOUNDATIONS  OF 
SOCIETY 

A,    Physical,  Intellectual,  Social  Evolution 
NOT  Antagonistic 

Evolution  has  proceeded  along  many  lines  and 
not  along  a  single  one;  it  is  best  represented,  not 
by  a  ladder  or  scale  but  by  a  branching  tree  in 
which  growth  has  ceased  in  certain  branches  but 
is  still  going  on  in  others,  and  while  many  branches 
grow  upward,  some  turn  down.  In  one  case  it  is 
progressive  and  in  another  retrogressive,  in  one 
case  it  leads  to  increased  and  in  another  to  decreased 
size  and  complexity  of  structure;  in  one  case  to 
physical  strength  and  combativeness,  in  another  to 
weakness,  cunning,  and  concealment.  In  man  there 
have  been  three  main  lines  of  evolution — physical, 
intellectual,  social.  The  fundamental  causes  of 
progress  may  be  the  same  in  all  of  these  lines; 
it  may  be,  for  example,  the  survival  of  the  fittest, 
but  the  standards  of  fitness  are  different  in  the 
three.  Physically,  the  fittest  is  the  most  viable; 
intellectually,  the  fittest  is  the  most  rational; 
socially,  the  fittest  is  the  most  ethical. 

8s 


86  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

These  three  standards  are  often  in  conflict, 
they  are  always  balanced  against  one  another,  but 
they  are  not  mutually  exclusive;  all  three  may, 
and  do,  coexist  in  such  a  way  that  each  strengthens 
the  other.  In  his  famous  Romanes  Lectures  on 
"Evolution  and  Ethics,"  Huxley  says:*  "Let  us 
understand,  once  for  all,  that  the  ethical  progress 
of  society  depends,  not  on  imitating  the  cosmic 
process,  still  less  in  running  away  from  it,  but  in 
combating  it."  But  I  fancy  that  even  in  Huxley's 
thought  the  combat  between  ethical  progress  and 
the  struggle  for  physical  existence  consisted  in 
keeping  this  struggle  within  certain  bounds  rather 
than  in  eliminating  it  altogether.  The  progress  of 
mankind  involves  the  preservation  of  a  proper  bal- 
ance between  physical,  intellectual,  and  social  fit- 
ness; no  one  of  these  must  go  so  far  as  to  harm  or 
destroy  either  of  the  others.  Least  of  all  is  there 
any  justification  for  the  views  of  Bernhardi  and 
other  biological  militarists,  that  the  most  powerful, 
domineering,  and  combative  are  the  fittest  socially. 
We  know  as  a  certainty  that  this  is  not  the  case,  and 
that  such  ideas  would  lead  to  the  utter  destruction 
of  society.  Mankind  may  have  lost  something  in 
physical  fitness  by  curbing  "Nature  red  in  tooth 
and  claw,"  but  it  has  gained  immeasurably  through 
the  establishment  of  society,  which  would  have 
been  impossible  with  unlimited  struggle  for  exist- 

*  "Evolution  and  Ethics,"  p.  83. 


EVOLUTION  AND   DEMOCRACY  87 

ence  between  individuals,  classes,  and  nations. 
Darwin  himself,  long  ago,  protested  against  this 
mistaken  application  of  natural  selection  to  society 
and  showed  that  in  social  evolution  the  most  ethical 
is  the  most  fit.* 

But  while  these  different  lines  of  evolution  are 
not  necessarily  antagonistic  it  is  important  to  re- 
member that  all  life  processes,  including  evolution, 
are  balanced,  as  it  were,  between  contending  forces 
and  principles.  Life  itself,  as  well  as  evolution, 
is  a  continual  adjustment  of  internal  to  external 
conditions,  a  balance  between  constructive  and 
destructive  processes,  a  combination  of  differentia- 
tion and  integration,  of  variation  and  inheritance, 
a  compromise  between  the  needs  of  the  individual 
and  those  of  the  species.  And  in  addition  to  these 
conflicting  relations  we  find  in  man  the  opposition 
of  instinct  and  intelligence,  emotion  and  reason, 
selfishness  and  altruism,  individual  freedom  and 
social  obligation.  Progress  is  the  product  of  the 
harmonious  correlation  of  organism  and  environ- 
ment, specialization  and  co-operation,  instinct  and 
intelligence,  Hberty  and  duty. 

In  short  it  is  impossible  for  man  to  make  real 
and  lasting  progress  by  destroying  the  balance 
which  exists  between  these  three  lines  of  evolution. 


*  In  a  letter  to  Wallace  he  says  that  "the  struggle  between  the 
races  of  man  depended  entirely  on  intellectual  and  moral  qualities" 
("More  Letters  of  Charles  Darwin,"  vol.  II,  p.  33). 


88  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

Here,  as  everywhere  else  in  the  world  of  living 
things,  such  progress  consists  in  maintaining  a 
proper  balance  between  many  desirable  ends. 

B.    Social  Progress  Means  Greater  Special- 
ization AND  Co-operation 

Organization,  whether  physical,  intellectual,  or 
social,  means  differentiation  and  integration,  spe- 
cialization and  co-operation,  diversity  and  har- 
mony. Progressive  evolution  invariably  and  inevi- 
tably means  increasing  differentiation  and  integra- 
tion. In  the  long  history  of  life  upon  the  earth, 
organisms  have  varied  in  every  possible  way;  they 
may  be  said  to  have  made  millions  and  millions  of 
experiments  in  finding  the  path  of  progressive 
evolution,  and  in  every  instance  this  path  has  been 
in  the  direction  of  greater  specialization  and  co- 
operation. One-celled  organisms,  in  which  the 
greatest  amount  of  individual  liberty  is  preserved 
to  the  separate  cells,  have  undergone  but  little 
progressive  evolution  and  have  remained  in  prac- 
tically the  same  stage  of  organization  for  millions 
of  years.  Many-celled  organisms,  on  the  other 
hand,  have  undergone  the  most  varied  and  exten- 
sive evolution;  and  this  has  been  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  specialization  of  single  cells  and  their 
co-operation  in  the  work  of  the  organism  as  a 
whole  has  made  possible  the  highest  types  of 
organisms. 


EVOLUTION  AND   DEMOCRACY  89 

In  a  similar  way  one  may  trace  the  evolution  of 
animal  societies  from  a  condition  in  which  extreme 
individualism  prevails  up  to  societies  of  ants, 
bees,  and  termites  in  which  the  specialization  of 
individuals  is  higher,  the  mutual  dependence  more 
complete,  and  the  work  which  the  colony  is  able 
to  perform  is  immensely  greater  and  more  perfect 
than  could  be  accomplished  by  any  number  of 
individuals  working  separately.  What  the  indi- 
vidual cannot  do  because  of  lack  of  strength  or 
specialization  or  time,  the  social  group  can  accom- 
plish with  the  strength  and  specialization  of  all 
and  through  long  periods  of  time. 

What  is  true  of  insects  in  this  respect  is  also  true 
of  men.  It  matters  not  that  in  the  one  case  activi- 
ties are  governed  by  instinct  alone  and  in  the  other 
by  intelligence  as  well  as  instinct;  the  final  result, 
the  biological  ideal,  is  the  same,  whether  the  advan- 
tages of  higher  organization  have  been  discovered 
by  natural  selection  or  by  intelligence.  If  human 
society  is  to  be  something  more  than  an  aggrega- 
tion of  individuals,  if  it  is  to  accompHsh  more  than 
can  be  performed  by  separate  persons,  it  must  be 
through  higher  and  higher  organization,  that  is 
through  greater  specialization  and  more  complete 
co-operation.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  evolution 
of  human  society  has  been  in  this  direction,  and  the 
entire  past  history  of  living  things  indicates  that 
further  progress  of  society  must  be  along  this  line. 


90  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

C.    Society  Founded  on  Instincts 

The  integrating  factors  in  all  animal  societies 
are  instincts  rather  than  intelligence.  That  this 
is  true  of  ants,  hees,  and  wasps,  of  fishes,  birds, 
wolves,  and  sheep  no  one  will  question.  That  it  is 
equally  true  of  human  society  is  plainly  apparent 
to  any  one  who  studies  primitive  man  or  who 
analyzes  the  behavior  of  even  the  highest  races. 
Even  in  man,  instinct  is  more  universal  and  more 
powerful  than  reason;  indeed,  reason  plays  a  rela- 
tively small  part  in  the  lives  and  activities  of  most 
men.  The  contrary  opinion  is  due  to  our  inveterate 
habit  of  acting  instinctively  and  then  attempting 
to  explain  to  ourselves  or  to  others  the  reason  for 
the  act.  Indeed,  mankind,  as  a  whole,  has  but 
recently  begun  to  emerge  from  a  life  of  instinct  to 
one  of  intelligence  and  reason.*  Some  races  and 
some  individuals  have  gone  farther  in  this  direction 
than  others,  but  with  the  great  mass  of  mankind 
instinct  is  still  the  guide  of  life. 

Descartes  begins  his  famous  "Discourse  on 
Method"  with  these  words:  "Good  sense  or 
reason  is,  of  all  things  among  men,  the  most  equally 
distributed."  No  modern  philosopher  or  scientist 
would  agree  to  this ;  on  the  contrary,  he  would  say : 
"Instinct  is,  of  all  psychical  things  among  men,  the 

*  On  the  transition  from  instinct  to  intelligence  and  reason,  see 
Conklin,  "Heredity  and  Environnaent,"  pp.  43~49- 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  91 

most  equally  distributed."  Instinct  and  not  reason 
is  the  source  and  ultimate  cause  of  human  society 
as  well  as  of  most  human  behavior. 

The  principal  instincts  of  all  animals  are  those 
which  concern  safety,  food,  and  reproduction; 
the  most  important  social  instincts  have  to  do 
with  the  defense,  welfare,  and  perpetuity  of  the 
group.  In  addition  to  these  general  instincts  the 
following  more  special  ones  have  served  to  bind  the 
higher  mammals  together  in  societies: 

(i)  The  instinct  of  service,  especially  between 
members  of  the  same  family  or  social 
group. 

(2)  The  fear  of  isolation,  or  disapproval,  and  the 

desire  for  fellowship,  or  sympathy. 

(3)  The  tendency  to  follow  trusted  leaders,  but 

not  to  depart  too  far  from  precedents.* 

These  are  the  integrating,  co-ordinating,  harmo- 
nizing bonds  which  unite  men  in  societies.  They 
are  deep-seated  instincts  not  easily  overcome. 
The  presence  and  power  of  these  instincts  in  prac- 
tically all  peoples  of  the  earth  has  been  demon- 
strated in  a  most  remarkable  manner  during  the 
Great  War.  It  is  reassuring  to  find  that  the  inte- 
grative instincts  on  which  society  is  founded  have 
not  disappeared,  and  while  these  foundations  re- 
main let  no  one  despair  of  the  future  of  society. 

*  See  Trotter,  "  Instincts  of  the  Herd  in  Peace  and  War,"  London, 
1916. 


92  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

On  the  other  hand,  among  the  higher  mammals 
and  especially  among  men  there  are  disintegrative 
instincts  or  desires  which  tend  to  disrupt  societies 
or  at  least  to  create  disharmony.  Among  these 
are: 

(i)  The  desire  for  individual  freedom,  even  wh^n 
it  conflicts  with  the  welfare  of  society. 

(2)  The  tendency  to  limit  social  co-operation 
to  groups  or  classes  based  upon  family, 
racial,  national,  temperamental,  environ- 
mental, industrial,  intellectual,  or  religious 
homogeneity. 

Such  disruptive  instincts  are  not  unknown  in 
animal  societies.  Ant-colonies  often  wage  relent- 
less war  upon  other  colonies,  even  though  they  be 
of  the  same  species.  Under  certain  circumstances 
bees  become  ruthless  robbers  and  marauders, 
waging  a  war  of  extermination  upon  weaker  or 
defenseless  colonies,  and  even  upon  other  species 
of  animals;  indeed  the  robber  instinct  of  bees 
seems  to  be  a  kind  of  frenzy,  or  madness,  which  is 
possibly  the  result  of  fear  and  the  defensive  instinct. 
In  all  animals  the  class  instinct  serves  to  bind  to- 
gether more  firmly  the  members  of  the  same  class 
or  colony,  while  at  the  same  time  it  widens  the 
gaps  between  different  classes  and  colonies.  In- 
deed, it  may  be  said  that  in  animal  societies  there 
are  practically  no  bonds  between  different  groups 


EVOLUTION  AND   DEMOCRACY  93 

or  colonies.  These  class  instincts  are  very  evident 
among  men.  Fortunately  they  are  opposed  by 
the  harmonizing  and  unifying  instincts,  and  most 
of  all  by  intelligence  and  reason. 

The  incompleteness  of  integration,  co-operation, 
and  harmony  in  human  society  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  imperfect  intelligence  and  freedom  have  come 
in  to  interfere  with  instinct.  Disharmony  in  our- 
selves and  in  society  is  the  price  we  pay  for  personal 
intelligence  and  freedom.  The  more  intelligence 
one  has  the  greater  is  his  freedom  from  purely 
instinctive  responses,  but  man  is  never  wholly 
free  from  the  influences  of  instinct.  The  personal 
freedom  which  endangers  human  co-operation  opens 
at  the  same  time  a  new  path  of  progress  along  ra- 
tional lines.  In  our  individual  behavior  and  in  our 
social  activities  we  now  seek  the  ideal  harmony  of 
the  hive,  but  on  the  higher  plane  of  intelligence, 
freedom,  and  ethics. 

The  past  evolution  of  man  has  occurred  almost 
entirely  without  conscious  human  guidance;  but 
with  the  appearance  of  intellect  and  the  capacity 
of  profiting  by  experience  a  new  and  great  oppor- 
tunity and  responsibility  has  been  given  man  of 
directing  rationally  and  ethically  his  future  evolu- 
tion. More  than  anything  else,  that  which  dis- 
tinguishes human  society  from  that  of  other  ani- 
mals is  just  this  ability — incomplete  though  it  is — 
to  control  instincts  and  emotions  by  intelligence 


94  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

and  reason.  Those  who  maintain  that  racial, 
national,  and  class  antagonisms  are  inevitable  be- 
cause they  are  instinctive,  and  that  wars  can  never 
cease  because  man  is  by  nature  a  fighting  animal, 
really  deny  that  mankind  can  ever  learn  by  experi- 
ence; they  look  backward  to  the  instinctive  origins 
of  society  and  not  forward  to  its  rational  organiza^ 
tion.  We  shall  never  cease  to  have  instincts,  but, 
unless  they  are  balanced  and  controlled  by  reason, 
human  society  will  revert  to  the  level  of  the  pack 
or  herd  or  hive.  The  foundations  of  human  society 
are  laid  in  gregarious  instincts,  but  upon  these  foun- 
dations human  intelligence  has  erected  that  enor- 
mous structure  which  we  call  civilization. 


II 

PROGRESS  IN  HUMAN  HISTORY 

The  history  of  mankind  seems  to  the  casual 
observer  an  eternal  struggle  for  existence  or  su- 
premacy on  the  part  of  individuals,  tribes,  classes, 
nations,  and  races.  One  ideal  or  people  for  a  while 
gains  ascendancy  and  then  goes  down  before  other 
ideals  or  peoples,  and  at  times  it  seems  that  the 
human  race  learns  nothing  from  experience.  Some 
one  has  said  that  ''the  only  thing  we  learn  from 
history  is  that  we  learn  nothing  from  it."  Many 
persons  maintain  that  "what  has  been  will  be"; 
wars,  oppression,  domination  of  one  group  by  an- 
other will  never  cease  either  because  they  were 
ordained  by  the  Creator  or  are  caused  by  ineradica- 
ble traits  of  human  nature. 

Human  history  viewed  as  such  a  record  of  un- 
connected events  is  comparable  to  natural  history 
before  the  general  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  of 
evolution,  when  every  species  of  animal  or  plant 
was  regarded  as  a  distinct  and  special  creation. 

The  evolutionary  view  of  history  has  now  largely 
replaced  this  older  view,  and  just  as  in  the  case  of 
the  evolution  of  organisms,  so,  also,  in  human  his- 
tory  we   recognize   series  of  changes  genetically 

95 


96  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

connected  but  leading  nowhere  except  to  mere 
diversity,  others  which  lead  to  increasing  adapta- 
tion to  peculiar  conditions,  and  still  others  leading 
to  increasing  perfection  and  complexity  of  social 
organization — that  is,  divergent,  adaptive,  and  pro- 
gressive types  of  evolution  characterize  human  history 
as  well  as  the  history  of  animals  and  plants.  As  in 
the  evolution  of  organisms,  so,  also,  in  human  his- 
tory there  have  been  innumerable  changes  or  di- 
versities that  have  led  nowhere;  there  have  been 
many  changes  which  have  led  merely  to  better 
adaptation  to  peculiar  conditions ;  there  have  been 
very  few  lines  of  progress. 

Kant  held  that  human  progress  consists  in  moral 
self-development  and  self-liberation  from  the  do- 
minion of  nature  leading  to  a  state  of  the  greatest 
possible  liberty.  He  recognized  the  development  of 
reason  in  the  human  species  and  the  establishment 
of  universal  justice  through  international  action 
as  the  goal  of  history.  Hegel,  Fichte,  and  Michelet 
represented /iree^ow  as  the  aim  of  history;  Schelling, 
the  harmonizing  of  freedom  and  necessity,  of  self- 
will  and  the  universal  will.  Condorcet  believed 
that  the  growth  of  equality  between  nations  and 
classes — not  absolute  equality,  but  equality  of 
right  and  liberty — was  the  chief  lesson  of  history. 
Herder,  Flint,  and  many  others  regard  the  growth 
of  the  idea  of  human  unity,  of  universal  brother- 
hood, as  the  chief  line  of  progress  throughout  the 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  97 

historic  era.  Wells  has  recently  undertaken  to 
trace  the  increasing  size  of  governmental  units, 
the  evolution  of  the  world  state,  and  the  growth  of 
the  ideal  of  unification  as  one  of  the  great  lines  of 
human  progress.  Others  see  in  the  progressive 
conquest  of  nature  one  of  the  chief  lines  of  progress 
throughout  history.  To  others  the  growing  oppor- 
tunities, rights,  and  powers  of  the  common  man, 
in  short,  the  growing  spirit  of  democracy  marks  the 
greatest  advance  of  human  society. 

These  lines  of  human  progress  are  not  conflicting, 
nor  even  independent  of  one  another.  The  develop- 
ment of  reason  in  the  human  race — that  is,  of  ra- 
tional co-operation — must  involve  the  develop- 
ment of  universal  justice.  The  growing  freedom 
of  the  individual  in  body  and  mind  must  be  recon- 
ciled with  increasing  social  obligations.  The  de- 
velopment of  the  idea  of  human  unity  and  brother- 
hood must  ultimately  carry  with  it  the  idea  of 
equality  of  right  and  liberty,  and  of  world  unifica- 
tion. The  conquest  of  nature  means  greater 
freedom  through  harnessing  natural  forces  rather 
than  human  bodies,  through  controlling  environ- 
ment rather  than  being  controlled  by  it.  And  all 
of  these  lines  of  social  progress  are  correlated  with 
the  growth  of  democracy. 

By  placing  exclusive  or  even  undue  emphasis 
upon  ideals  of  individual  freedom  or  of  social 
obligations,  of  nationalism  or  of  world  unification. 


98  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

of  class  or  race  superiority  or  of  democratic  equality, 
different  peoples  and  ages  have  built  up  great 
but  unstable  civilizations.  Genuine  and  enduring 
progress  can  be  achieved  only  by  the  reconciliation 
of  these  ideals,  which  are  antagonistic  only  when 
held  in  extreme  forms. 

Again  and  again  in  the  evolution  of  animals  and 
plants  extreme  specialization  in  certain  lines  has 
brought  about  rapid  progress,  but  has  led  to  a  lack 
of  stability  and  adaptability  and  has  ended  in 
extinction.  And  there  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  the  same  is  true  of  the  evolution  of  human 
society.  Extreme  development  of  ideals  of  organi- 
zation and  eflficiency,  or  of  liberty  and  equality, 
leads  to  an  unbalanced  state  of  society;  stable 
progress  consists  in  advances  along  many  correlated 
lines. 

Specialization  and  co-operation  under  powerful 
autocracies  were  apparently  more  perfect  in  many 
ancient  states  than  in  any  modern  ones.  Probably 
no  modern  state  has  equalled  the  perfection  of  such 
forced  organization  and  efficiency  as  was  present 
in  Egypt  under  the  Pyramid  builders.  Those  pres- 
ent-day reformers  who  desire  to  force  upon  the 
masses  of  mankind  the  rule  of  intelligent  and 
powerful  autocracies  in  the  interests  of  efficiency 
would  do  well  to  reflect  upon  the  lessons  of  history. 

Life  and  evolution,  man's  body,  mind,  and  so- 
ciety   are    founded    on    compromise.      Fanatical 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  99 

individualism  or  socialism,  universal  equality  or 
inequality,  absolute  autocracy  or  democracy  find 
no  foundation  or  counterpart  in  biology,  for  life 
and  all  of  its  activities  consist  in  compromise, 
balance,  adjustment  between  opposing  principles. 


Ill 

THE  BIOLOGICAL  BASES  OF 
DEMOCRACY 

These  are  some  of  the  biological  and  historical 
backgrounds  of  human  society.  Let  us  now  apply 
some  of  these  principles  of  evolution  and  progress 
to  that  system  of  social  organization  which  we  call 
democracy. 

There  have  been,  and  still  are,  many  kinds  of 
democracy  in  many  fields,  and  it  is  therefore  diffi- 
cult to  draw  a  very  sharp  and  discriminating  defi- 
nition of  what  is  meant  by  this  term.  But  it  will 
be  admitted,  I  think,  that  democracy  in  the  widest 
sense  means  much  more  than  a  form  of  govern- 
ment, that  it  is  indeed  a  system  of  social  organiza- 
tion affecting  almost  every  relation  of  man  to  man. 
It  is  a  system  which,  ideally  at  least,  attempts  to 
equalize  the  opportunities  and  responsibilities  of 
individuals  in  society.  As  thus  defined  it  would 
apply  not  merely  to  government  and  the  adminis- 
tration of  justice  but  also  to  education  and  indi- 
vidual development,  to  industry  and  its  reward, 
property. 

But  this  ideal  of  absolute  equality  has  never  been. 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  loi 

and  can  never  be,  fully  realized  in  human  society 
because  nature  has  made  men  unequal  in  every 
respect — physically,  intellectually,  and  morally — 
and  there  is  no  possible  way  in  which  such  natural 
inequalities  can  be  wholly  eradicated.  Further- 
more, the  very  nature  of  organization,  that  is, 
specialization  and  co-operation,  implies  inequali- 
ties and  limitations;  without  these  there  could  be 
no  such  thing  as  society  or  progress.  A  society 
in  which  every  individual  is  absolutely  free  and 
equal  would  be  not  only  an  impossibility  but  also 
a  contradiction  in  terms. 

Looked  at  merely  as  a  system  of  government,  a 
democracy  in  which  all  the  people  rule  directly, 
as  in  ancient  Greece,  is  an  impossibility  in  any 
populous  state.  Instead,  modern  democracies  are 
representative  governments,  in  which  the  people 
as  a  whole  choose  their  representatives  to  admin- 
ister the  government  for  them.  General  policy 
may  be  determined  by  the  people,  but  the  details 
of  carrying  out  of  any  policy  must  be  left  to  chosen 
leaders.  Further,  it  has  been  found  necessary  to 
hedge  about  even  such  a  modified  democracy  as 
this  by  limiting  suffrage  to  adult  persons,  not 
feeble-minded,  insane,  or  criminal;  and  it  is  per- 
fectly evident  that  higher  intellectual  qualifica- 
tions are  necessary. 

The  mental  tests  used  in  our  army  revealed  a 
surprising  amount  of  illiteracy,  and,  what  is  much 


I02 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 


worse,  an  alarmingly  low  level  of  average  intelli- 
gence. These  tests  were  devised  to  measure  intel- 
lectual capacity  or  inherited  ability  rather  than 
acquired  information  or  education,  and  for  the  first 
time  they  give  us  a  means  of  estimating  the  approxi- 
mate number  of  persons  in  this  country  of  low, 
mean,  or  high  intelligence.  The  tests  were  of  two 
sorts,  the  Alpha  test  for  those  who  could  read  and 
write,  the  Beta  test  for  all  others.  These  tests  were 
taken  by  about  one  million  and  seven  hundred 
thousand  drafted  men,  who  may  be  assumed  to 
have  been  somewhat  above  the  average  intelli- 
gence of  the  entire  population  since  none  who  were 
evidently  feeble-minded  were  drafted.  Seven  grades 
were  recognized,  ranging  from  A  to  D— ,  these 
grades  being  designated  as  follows:  A  "very  superior 
intelligence,"  B  "superior,"  C-f-  "high  average," 
C  "average,"  C—  "low  average,"  D  "inferior," 
D—  "very  inferior."  The  "mental  ages"  of  these 
different  grades  and  the  relative  numbers  in  each 
are  shown  in  the  following  table: 


GRADE 

MENTAL    AGE 

PER   CENT   OF 
WHOLE 

A 

18-19 

16-17 

15 

13-14 

12 

II 

10 

43^ 

9 

16K 
25 
20 

15 
10 

B 

C+ 

C 

C- 

D 

D- 

EVOLUTION  AND   DEMOCRACY  103 

Assuming  that  these  drafted  men  are  a  fair 
sample  of  the  entire  population  of  approximately 
100  millions,  this  means  that  45  millions,  or  nearly 
one-half  of  the  whole  population,  will  never  develop 
mental  capacity  beyond  the  stage  represented  by  a 
normal  twelve-year-old  child,  and  that  only  i^^ 
millions  will  ever  show  superior  intelligence. 

When  it  is  remembered  that  mental  capacity  is 
inherited,  that  parents  of  low  intelligence  generally 
produce  children  of  low  intelligence  and  that  on 
the  average  they  have  more  children  than  persons 
of  high  intelligence,  and,  furthermore,  when  we 
consider  that  the  intellectual  capacity  or  "mental 
age"  can  be  changed  very  little  by  education  we 
are  in  a  position  to  appreciate  the  very  serious 
condition  which  confronts  us  as  a  nation. 

We  have  always  recognized  that  the  success  of 
democracy  depends  upon  the  intelligence  of  the 
people,  but  we  have  never  before  had  any  adequate 
conception  of  the  very  low  level  of  the  average 
intelligence  of  the  nation.  Furthermore,  we  have 
generally  assumed  that  intelligence  depended  upon 
education  and  that  general  compulsory  education 
would  solve  all  our  problems.  Education  is  still 
one  of  our  greatest  needs,  but,  alas,  it  is  not  the 
magical  panacea  that  was  once  supposed.  Educa- 
tion can  only  bring  to  development  the  qualities 
which  are  potentially  present;  it  cannot  increase 
those  potentialities  or  capacities;  and  the  attempt 


I04  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

to  educate  a  person  of  D  grade  beyond  the  fifth 
year  of  the  elementary  schools  is  usually  wasted 
effort. 

Undoubtedly  the  ultimate  standing  and  success 
of  any  popular  government  must  depend  upon  the 
intelligence  of  its  citizens,  and  yet  owing  to  the 
larger  families  of  the  unintelligent  and  to  the  great 
influx  of  foreigners  of  low  mental  capacity,  our 
average  intelligence  has  probably  been  declining 
for  the  past  twenty-five  years  at  least. 

There  is  some  demand,  especially  on  the  part  of 
police  authorities,  that  finger-prints  be  made  of 
every  person  in  the  nation  for  purposes  of  identifi- 
cation; how  much  more  desirable  it  is  that  every 
person  be  classified  mentally !  By  this  means  we 
could  avoid  untold  waste  of  time  and  effort  in 
trying  to  give  higher  education  to  those  incapable 
of  profiting  by  it  and  in  trying  to  fit  the  wrong 
persons  into  particular  positions.  And  at  the  same 
time  we  should  greatly  increase  the  happiness  and 
contentment  of  the  people  concerned,  for  nothing 
is  so  productive  of  unrest  and  discontent  as  the 
putting  of  men  and  women  into  positions  which 
they  are  incapable  of  filling,  or,  worse  still,  of  as- 
signing persons  of  high  capacity  to  low-grade  work. 
Let  us  have  the  finger-prints,  but  before  everything 
else  let  us  have  a  mental  classification  of  all  chil- 
dren of  school  age.  When  once  this  has  been  done 
perhaps  the  least  intelligent  group  can  ultimately 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  105 

be  denied  the  suffrage  as  are  imbeciles,  insane, 
and  criminals  at  present. 

All  these  things  are  limitations,  adjustments, 
balances  necessary  to  make  democracy  a  practical 
system  of  government.  Many  of  them  were  plainly 
expressed  and  others  were  implied  in  the  founda- 
tions of  our  government.  They  are  not  arbitrary 
but  necessary  limitations  of  the  ideal  of  universal 
liberty  and  equality.  But  there  are  other  limita- 
tions in  modern  society  which  are  not  absolutely 
necessary  and  some  of  which  are  very  undesirable, 
and  there  has  recently  arisen  an  insistent  demand 
on  the  part  of  great  numbers  of  people  for  a  purer 
form  of  democracy,  one  in  which  there  will  be 
a  larger  degree  of  liberty  and  equality  than  any 
the  world  has  ever  seen.  Does  progress  lie  in  the 
direction  of  greater  personal  liberty  and  equality? 
Is  pure  democracy  a  primitive  or  an  advanced  stage 
in  social  evolution?  Is  it  the  goal  toward  which 
the  race  is  moving  or  merely  a  stage  through  which 
it  is  passing? 

There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  direction  in 
which  all  mankind  is  moving  at  present.  At  the 
close  of  the  greatest  war  in  history,  a  war  which  we 
fondly  hoped  was  fought  "  to  make  the  world  safe 
for  democracy,"  a  tidal  wave  of  democracy  has 
covered  the  whole  earth.  The  most  ancient  and 
powerful  autocracies  of  Europe  have  gone  down  in 
the  wreckage  of  the  war  and  so-called  democra- 


io6  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

cies  have  taken  their  place.  The  plaintive  appeal  of 
Carl  of  Austria  to  Ferdinand  of  Roumania,  ''We 
kings  must  stand  together  now,"  was  a  recognition, 
when  too  late,  of  the  conquering  forces  of  democracy 
which  were  released  by  the  war.  Democracy  is 
taking  possession  of  the  world  not  merely  in  forms 
of  government  but  also  in  the  management  of 
industry,  the  distribution  of  property,  the  purpose 
and  character  of  education.  It  begins  to  appear 
that  the  world  is  not  only  safe  for  democracy, 
but  that  it  is  unsafe  for  anything  else. 

Our  passion  for  democracy  has  been  with  us  a 
kind  of  religion;  it  has  rested  in  the  main  upon 
instinct  rather  than  reason,  upon  sentiment  rather 
than  science.  No  one  of  us  would  wish  to  disturb 
the  firm  foundations  of  our  faith,  which  are  laid 
in  instincts  and  emotions,  and  yet  it  is  our  privi- 
lege and  duty  to  give  reasons  for  the  faith  that  is  in 
us  and  to  examine  the  merits  and  demerits  of  our 
institutions  in  the  light  of  knowledge  and  experi- 
ence. If  democracy  is  to  endure  and  prevail  it 
must  rest  upon  science  as  well  as  sentiment.  Popu- 
lar approval  or  disapproval  will  not  alter  the  course 
of  nature  and  civil  laws  cannot  aboHsh  natural 
ones. 

In  spite  of  the  growth  of  democracy  not  a  few 
thoughtful  people  are  afraid  of  it  and  many  would 
gladly  see  it  limited  still  further  in  extent  or  appli- 
cation.    Before  the  war  there  was  apparent  in 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  107 

this  country  a  growing  distrust  of  democracy, 
especially  on  the  part  of  those  who  are  somewhat 
removed  from  the  ranks  of  the  common  people; 
during  the  war  this  distrust  was  more  or  less  con- 
cealed, but  now  amid  the  social  earthquakes  which 
are  shaking  the  world  this  feeling  is  greatly  in- 
creased, and  we  are  now  witnessing  such  a  conflict 
of  opinion  regarding  universal  democracy  as  the 
world  has  never  before  known. 

Distrust  of  democracy  runs  through  the  histories 
of  all  nations,  ancient  and  modern.  It  was  shown 
even  by  the  founders  of  this  greatest  of  democra- 
cies in  the  limitations  which  were  placed  upon 
citizenship  and  suffrage  and  in  the  many  attempts 
which  were  made  to  guard  the  highest  offices  against 
popular  interference,  as,  for  example,  in  the  consti- 
tutional provision  for  the  election  of  the  President 
by  an  electoral  college,  the  election  of  senators  by 
State  legislatures,  and  the  appointment  of  judges 
by  the  executive.  It  appears  to-day  in  the  conflicts 
between  labor  and  capital,  the  opposition  to  wo- 
man's suffrage,  the  fear  of  popular  control  of  educa- 
tion, and  the  alarm  over  the  spread  of  socialism 
and  internationalism  throughout  the  world. 

Furthermore,  this  distrust  is  increased  by  the 
failures  and  short-comings  of  democracy  in  many 
countries  where  it  is  being  tried,  at  least  nominally. 
Alleyne  Ireland,*  in  particular,  has  recently  criti- 

*  Journal  of  Heredity,  Dec,  1918,  and  Nov.,  1919. 


io8  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

cised  the  whole  system  of  democracy  not  merely 
because  of  its  faults  and  failures  but  also  because 
of  its  fundamental  principles,  claiming  that  it 
substitutes  the  rule  of  "ignorant  masses"  for  that 
of  intelligent  leaders,  and  the  "blind  god  of  num- 
bers" for  wisdom  and  experience.  We  hear  much 
of  the  tyranny,  inefficiency,  ignorance,  and  cor- 
ruption of  democracies  and  unfortunately  much  of 
this  is  only  too  true.  Democracy  is  charged  with 
being  responsible  for  all  these  sins,  whereas  in  many 
instances  they  are  due  to  some  of  the  worst  types 
of  autocracy  which  are  merely  shielding  themselves 
under  the  name  of  democracy.  We  do  not  change 
the  nature  of  anything  by  merely  changing  its 
name  and  an  autocracy,  oligarchy,  or  aristocracy 
that  calls  itself  a  democracy  cannot  be  used  to 
disprove  the  value  of  real  democracy. 

Again  many  of  the  faults  which  are  charged 
up  against  democracy  such  as  emotionalism,  irra- 
tionalism,  blind  partisanship,  and  selfishness  are 
found  under  every  other  form  of  social  organiza- 
tion and  cannot  properly  be  attributed  to  democ- 
racy but  belong  rather  to  human  nature ;  the  most 
that  can  be  said  of  these  is  that  democracy  no  more 
than  other  systems  has  been  able  to  eliminate 
them. 

No  system  of  government  lives  up  to  its  best 
ideals  amd  no  single  system  is  universally  adapted 
to  all  people.    No  doubt  democracy  operates  best 


EVOLUTION  AND   DEMOCRACY  109 

with  those  in  whom  superior  intelligence  is  asso- 
ciated with  high  morahty,  in  whom  the  love  of 
freedom  is  associated  with  a  compelling  desire  for 
social  order  and  justice.  No  doubt  it  is  generally 
better  for  parents  to  govern  young  children  than 
to  make  them  absolutely  self-governing;  no  doubt 
people  of  superior  intelligence  and  morality  can 
govern  primitive  people  more  efficiently  than  they 
can  govern  themselves;  no  doubt  a  wise  and  benefi- 
cent autocracy  can  accomplish  many  desirable 
things  which  an  ignorant  and  corrupt  democracy 
cannot.  The  question  which  lies  back  of  all  this 
is,  What  is  the  ultimate  purpose  of  government? 
In  the  case  of  children,  is  it  not  to  bring  them  to  a 
condition  where  they  can  wisely  govern  them- 
selves? Is  the  ultimate  purpose  different  in  the 
case  of  primitive  peoples,  or  of  the  masses  in  a 
democracy?  Is  not  the  ultimate  aim  of  govern- 
ment the  highest  possible  development  of  the 
individual,  the  nation,  and  the  race?  Is  not  the 
educative  power  of  democracy  its  greatest  virtue? 
These  great  problems  of  the  hour  should  be 
viewed  not  only  in  the  light  of  human  history,  but 
also  in  the  long  perspective  of  the  history  of  living 
things  upon  the  earth.  Undoubtedly  the  funda- 
mental concepts  of  biology  apply  to  man  no  less 
than  to  other  organisms,  but  it  must  be  admitted 
that  the  application  of  biological  principles  to 
specific  problems  of  social  organization  is  often  of 


no  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

doubtful  value.  Thus  we  find  that  biological 
sanction  has  been  claimed  for  wholly  antagonistic 
Qpinions,  as,  for  example,  for  and  against  war, 
communism,  woman's  suffrage,  polygamy,  etc. 
Those  who  are  searching  for  biological  analogies  to 
support  almost  any  preconceived  theory  in  phil- 
osophy, sociology,  education,  or  government  can 
usually  find  them,  for  the  living  world  is  large 
and  extraordinarily  varied,  and  almost  every  possi- 
ble human  condition  has  its  parallel  somewhere 
among  lower  organisms,  where  we  find  many  kinds 
of  degeneration  as  well  as  progress. 

This  uncertainty  and  ambiguity  in  the  applica- 
tion of  biological  principles  to  man  and  his  insti- 
tutions, has  brought  this  whole  process  of  reasoning 
into  disrepute  among  those  who  look  upon  man 
as  a  being  who  stands  wholly  outside  the  realm 
of  biology,  but  in  spite  of  the  uncertainties  of 
biological  analogies  when  applied  to  minor  phases 
and  problems  of  human  society,  no  one  who  has 
felt  the  force  and  sweep  of  the  great  doctrine  of 
evolution,  can  doubt  that  biological  principles 
underHe  the  physical,  intellectual,  and  social  evolu- 
tion of  man — that  biology  is  a  torch-bearer  not 
merely  into  the  dark  backgrounds  of  human  his- 
tory, but  also  into  the  still  more  obscure  regions 
of  the  future  development  of  the  race. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  is,  in  many 
respects,  the  charter  of  our  democracy.  Adopted 
at  a  time  when  it  was  necessary  to  secure  the  ut- 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  iii 

most  co-operation  of  the  Colonies  and  of  the  world, 
it  made  its  appeal  directly  to  the  social  instincts, 
as  well  as  to  the  inteUigence  of  men,  to  their  love 
of  freedom,  justice,  and  equahty.  The  rights  of 
man  have  ever  been  the  foundation-stones  of  de- 
mocracy. The  Declaration  held  "  these  truths  to 
be  self-evident;  that  all  men  are  created  equal; 
that  they  are  endowed  by  their  Creator  with 
certain  inalienable  rights;  that  among  these  rights 
are  Hfe,  Uberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness. 
That  to  accomplish  these  purposes,  governments 
are  instituted  among  men,  deriving  all  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed."  Here 
are  the  foundation  principles  of  democracy,  which 
are  summarized  more  concisely  in  the  motto  of 
France — ''Liberty,  Equality,  Fraternity." 

What  is  the  teaching  of  biology  regarding  these 
principles  of  democracy?  How  can  we  harmonize 
individual  liberty  and  social  organization,  demo- 
cratic equality  and  hereditary  inequality,  universal 
fraternity,  and  national  and  class  hostility?  Or 
to  put  the  question  in  a  more  practical  form — 
How  can  we  develop  social  organization  in  spite  of 
individual  liberty,  democratic  equality  in  spite  of 
hereditary  inequality,  universal  fraternity  in  spite 
of  national  and  class  antagonisms  ?  These  are  great 
problems,  and  the  student  of  animal  organization 
and  evolution  can  do  no  more  than  to  offer  a  few 
biological  suggestions  as  to  their  solution. 


IV 


PERSONAL  LIBERTY  VS.  SOCIAL 
ORGANIZATION 

With  the  growth  of  intelligence  among  animals 
and  men,  responses  to  external  stimuli  and  to 
internal  instincts  become  less  immediate  and 
direct;  memories  of  past  experiences  come  in  to 
modify  or  inhibit  instinctive  responses,  and  these 
responses  are  no  longer  as  fixed  and  mechanical 
as  when  instinct  acts  alone.  There  thus  arises 
a  certain  amount  of  freedom  in  behavior;  such 
freedom  is  never  complete,  and  is  always  directly 
proportional  to  the  degree  of  intelligence  involved, 
and  inversely  proportional  to  the  strength  of  the 
instincts.  The  more  intelligence  one  has,  the 
greater  is  his  freedom  from  purely  instinctive  acts, 
but  man  is  never  wholly  free  from  the  influence  of 
instincts;  the  greater  his  rational  and  volitional 
powers,  the  more  complete  is  his  self-determina- 
tion, but  man  is  never  entirely  emancipated  from 
external  compulsions  of  his  physical  and  social 
environment. 

The  birth  and  growth  of  freedom  in  man  has 
led  to  many  conflicts  between  instinct  and  reason, 
between  personal  desires  and  the  social  welfare. 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  113 

Such  conflicts  are  lacking  among  individual  cells 
and  other  constituent  parts  of  the  body — as  such 
fables  as  that  of  "the  belly  and  the  members" 
plainly  imply.  The  perfect  integration  of  the  parts 
of  an  organism  is  the  result  of  organic  contact, 
especially  through  the  nervous  system,  of  chemical 
messengers  or  hormones  which  pass  from  one  part 
to  another,  and  of  simple  reflexes  or  tropisms. 
In  societies  such  as  those  of  ants  and  bees,  the 
integrating  factors  are  complex  reflexes,  or  chains 
of  reflexes,  which  are  known  as  instincts.  There 
is  here  so  little  intelligence  and  freedom  that  in- 
stinct is  the  only  ruler  and  harmony  is  complete. 
As  Huxley  says:  "Each  bee  has  its  duties  and  none 
has  its  rights."  The  incompleteness  of  integration, 
co-operation,  and  harmony  in  human  society  is 
due  to  the  fact  that  imperfect  intelligence  and 
freedom  have  come  in  to  interfere  with  instinct. 
Disharmony  in  ourselves,  and  in  society,  is  the 
price  we  pay  for  personal  intelligence  and  freedom. 
The  history  of  mankind  has  been  one  long  struggle 
for  freedom — freedom  not  only  from  the  control 
of  irrational  instincts,  but  also  and  chiefly  from  the 
compulsion  of  outside  forces  and  of  other  persons. 
The  eternal  struggle  against  unfavorable  environ- 
ment, and  for  the  conquest  of  nature,  the  battles 
for  personal  freedom  in  thought,  speech,  and  act, 
and  for  social  freedom  in  religion,  government, 
and  industry,  are  among  the  noblest  aspirations  of 


114  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

man.  The  struggle  to  be  free  is  part  of  a  great 
evolutionary  movement,  and  yet  in  any  society 
individual  freedom  must  be  limited  in  the  interest 
of  the  common  good,  and  the  larger  and  more 
complex  the  society,  the  greater  must  be  these 
limitations.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  life  and  evolu- 
tion are  balanced  between  opposing  principles. 
Should  the  human  ideal  be  individual  freedom  or 
social  co-operation,  liberty  or  duty,  individualism 
or  socialism  ?  It  may  be  granted  at  once,  that  both 
of  these  alternatives  are  desirable,  and  to  a  certain 
extent  attainable,  but  where  one  must  be  sacrificed 
for  the  other,  which  should  it  be?  Is  the  ideal 
state  one  in  which  the  social  bond  is  as  loose  as 
possible  and  individual  freedom  is  the  chief  aim,  or 
is  it  one  in  which  the  bond  is  as  close  as  possible, 
and  the  good  of  the  nation  or  race  or  species  is 
the  supreme  object? 

There  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  biological 
answer.  The  whole  course  of  evolution  from 
amoeba  to  man  is  marked  by  increasing  differen- 
tiation and  integration  of  the  constituent  parts  of 
the  organism;  the  whole  course  of  development 
from  the  egg  to  the  adult  is  a  series  of  progressive 
differentiations  and  integrations  of  the  constitu- 
ent cells;  the  most  essential  feature  of  biological 
progress  consists  in  the  subordination  of  minor 
units  to  the  larger  units  of  organization.  In  the 
relations   of   organisms   to   one   another,    nature 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  115 

invariably  sacrifices  the  individual,  if  it  be  neces- 
sary, for  the  good  of  the  colony  or  race  or  species. 
Race  preservation  and  evolution  is  the  supreme 
good  and  all  considerations  of  the  individual  are 
subordinate  to  this  end. 

Is  it  possible  that  the  same  rule  of  progress  which 
appUes  all  along  the  way  from  amoeba  to  man 
is  set  aside  when  we  come  to  human  society? 
Does  democracy,  as  contrasted  with  autocracy 
or  aristocracy,  mean  greater  freedom  for  the  indi- 
vidual and  a  looser  social  organization  ?  If  it  does 
it  would  seem,  from  a  biological  point  of  view, 
to  be  doomed  to  retrogression  or  extinction,  for 
it  would  represent  a  return  toward  the  protozoan 
condition,  a  process  of  disorganization  and  devolu- 
tion rather  than  of  progressive  organization  and 
evolution. 

Undoubtedly  the  usual  conception  of  demo- 
cratic freedom  does  involve  just  this  idea  of  maxi- 
mal individual  freedom  and  minimal  social  control, 
but  individualism  is  not  a  necessary  part  of  democ- 
racy, and,  when  carried  to  extremes,  it  ends  in 
anarchy.  In  this  country  we  still  cling  to  the  ideals 
of  a  pioneer  society  in  which  there  is  Httle  speciali- 
zation and  co-operation,  and  great  personal  free- 
dom; indeed,  to  many  persons  such  a  condition 
seems  the  best  possible  one  and  the  only  one  con- 
sistent with  democracy.  Such  ideals  represent  a 
primitive  and  not  an  advanced   stage  in   social 


ii6  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

evolution.  As  a  people  we  exalt  freedom  above 
service.  Liberty  is  our  national  deity;  her  image 
is  stamped  on  our  money,  her  colossal  figure  is 
the  first  to  greet  the  stranger  from  other  lands. 
America  is  above  all  else  the  "sweet  land  of 
liberty." 

And  yet  a  change  in  our  conception  of  liberty 
has  been  coming  over  the  nation;  we  are  finding 
that  the  pioneer  ideals  of  personal  liberty  and 
independence  are  incompatible  with  the  require- 
ments of  a  populous  country  and  a  well  organized 
society.  We  still  preserve  the  ancient  formulas, 
but  their  content  is  changing  and  must  continue 
to  change  as  society  develops.  Personal  freedom 
must  be  subordinated  more  and  more  to  social 
freedom,  and  pioneer  society  must  give  place  to 
the  more  highly  organized  state  in  which  increasing 
specialization  and  co-operation  are  the  companion 
principles  of  progress. 

Lack  of  specialization  is  said  to  be  one  of  the 
fatal  faults  of  democracy.  Mr.  Ireland  says* 
that  in  all  other  affairs  of  life  we  demand  special- 
ists, but  ''in  government  we  are  asked  to  submit 
expert  control  to  the  inexpert."  So  far  as  our 
particular  democracy  is  concerned,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  too  often  this  charge  is  true.  Our 
lack  of  specialization  is  reflected  in  our  contempt 
for  specialists  and  experts  of  every  sort.    The  belief 

*  hoc.  cit. 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  117 

is  wide-spread  that  one  man's  opinion  is  as  good  as 
another's,  and  that  expert  knowledge  is  merely 
another  way  of  fooling  the  people. 

Every  year  our  State  legislatures  are  flooded 
with  bills  against  vaccination  and  animal  experi- 
mentation, introduced  by  provincial  Solons  who 
firmly  believe  that  they  know  more  about  these 
subjects  than  men  who  have  devoted  their  lives 
to  them.  We  intrust  education  to  those  who  can 
find  no  other  occupation  and  who  can  scarcely 
manage  to  keep  one  lesson  ahead  of  their  classes, 
apparently  with  the  idea  that  any  one  can  teach. 
We  leave  the  control  of  food,  fuel,  clothing,  and 
other  necessaries  of  life  to  speculators  and  dirty 
middlemen,  and  the  health,  happiness,  and  employ- 
ment of  the  people  to  Providence  or  to  selfish 
exploiters.  In  a  democracy  where  ''every  citizen 
is  a  king"  we  assume  that  statesmanship  comes 
by  nature;  almost  every  citizen  thinks  that  he 
could  solve  complex  problems  of  government, 
ranging  all  the  way  from  parochial  affairs  to  inter- 
national relations,  better  than  those  who  have 
devoted  years  of  study  to  them.  We  elect  dema- 
gogues and  grafters  to  political  office  so  frequently 
that  the  very  name  "politician"  has  come  to  be 
a  reproach.  We  send  narrow  partisans  to  Congress, 
and,  by  stupid  adherence  to  party  regularity,  men 
wholly  untrained  in  statesmanship  are  frequently 
put  into  the  most  important  pubHc  places.     It 


ii8  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

is  generally  assumed  that  appointive  positions  will 
go  to  men  who  have  been  successful  in  winning 
votes,  and  positions  requiring  great  technical 
knowledge  are  often  filled  by  poHtical  figureheads 
with  the  suggestion  that  subordinates  can  do  the 
work. 

This  lack  of  specialization  is  seen  also  in  our 
systems  of  education.  Nature  gives  us  many  types 
of  individuals,  there  is  abundant  opportunity  for 
speciaHzation,  but  we  do  our  best  by  education  to 
eradicate  these  differences  and  to  make  all  citizens 
alike.  Regardless  of  inherited  capacities  or  in- 
tended occupations,  we  attempt  to  fit  all  persons 
to  the  same  Procrustean  bed.  The  argument 
has  been  advanced  against  woman's  suffrage  that 
women  are  different  from  men,  as  if  all  citizens  in 
the  state,  all  cells  in  the  body,  should  be  exactly 
alike.  There  is  arising  a  new  demand  for  educa- 
tion for  service,  for  training  for  efficiency,  and  this 
demand  is  sure  to  increase.  Many  kinds  of  citi- 
zens are  needed  to  make  up  a  nation,  and  many 
kinds  of  education  are  needed  for  many  kinds  of 
service.  How  preposterous  it  is  that  boys  and 
girls,  laborers  and  scholars,  farmers  and  merchants 
should  receive  identical  training  for  their  varied 
services  to  society.  And  yet  the  aim  in  this  has 
been  a  good  one;  namely,  to  bring  about  social 
unity  and  harmony.  Again  we  stand  between 
opposing  forces,  again  we  sail  the  narrow  sea  be- 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  119 

tween  the  Scylla  of  no  specialization  and  the 
Charybdis  of  no  co-operation. 

These  are  serious  defects  in  our  social  system,  and 
they  must  be  reformed  if  we  are  to  make  progress, 
or  even  to  hold  our  present  position;  but  it  should 
not  be  forgotten  that  as  a  nation  we  have  only 
recently  emerged  from  a  pioneer  condition  in  which 
there  was  little  specialization  and  co-operation,  and 
as  a  people  we  are  rapidly  becoming  more  highly 
specialized  without  becoming  less  democratic. 

Lack  of  specialization  is  no  essential  part  of 
democracy.  Specialists  in  all  fields  of  human  ac- 
tivity are  developed  in  democracies  no  less  than 
in  other  forms  of  government,  and  if  in  selecting 
men  for  public  office  we  still  retain  some  of  our 
pioneer  ideals,  this  phase  of  our  development  is 
rapidly  passing.  No  doubt  we  often  make  mistakes 
in  choosing  men  for  public  positions,  but  do  other 
forms  of  government  avoid  such  mistakes?  In  a 
democracy  these  mistakes  may  be  quickly  remedied; 
when  we  become  sufficiently  aroused,  '*we  turn  the 
rascals  out,"  but  it  is  more  difficult  to  get  rid  of  a 
corrupt  or  incompetent  autocrat. 

Does  democracy  mean  that  every  citizen  knows 
how  to  govern  the  country,  or  wage  war,  or  con- 
clude peace,  or  develop  industry,  or  conserve  the 
public  health,  or  do  a  thousand  other  things  which 
are  necessary  in  a  modern  state?  Certainly  not; 
ideal  democracy  means  not  less  specialization,  but 


I20  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

fuller  co-operation  than  in  other  forms  of  govern- 
ment. In  science,  medicine,  education,  commerce, 
industry,  agriculture,  and  innumerable  other  fields, 
we  must  have  speciahsts,  and  the  same  is  true  of 
the  various  functions  of  government.  The  war  has 
done  us  a  great  service  in  awakening  us  to  this 
fact  and  it  will  be  a  crime  against  civilization  and 
progress  if  we  allow  the  nation  to  settle  back  once 
more  into  the  conditions  which  prevailed  before 
the  war. 

However,  candid  persons  must  recognize  that 
there  is  abundant  justification  for  the  popular 
mistrust  of  certain  types  of  experts.  Sad  experi- 
ence has  demonstrated  again  and  again  that  a  man 
may  know  a  great  deal  about  some  specialty  and 
still  show  a  lamentable  lack  of  good  judgment. 
Narrowness  of  outlook  and  intense  specialization 
often  make  "learned  fools."  Specialization  of  this 
type  is  like  overspecialization  in  physical  evolu- 
tion, it  leads  to  lack  of  balance  and  adjustment, 
and  ultimately  to  elimination. 

Few  nations  have  ever  equalled  the  degree  of 
specialization  shown  by  the  late  Imperial  German 
Government.  All  citizens,  from  the  Emperor  down 
to  the  common  soldier,  had  undergone  long  train- 
ing for  their  special  duties.  And  yet  it  is  the  general 
opinion  of  most  people,  including  the  Germans 
themselves,  that  few  nations  ever  made  more  seri- 
ous blunders  in  policy,  diplomacy,  and  even  in 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  121 

military  operations.  These  blunders  were  not  in 
the  technical  execution  of  particular  tasks,  in 
which  they  were  marvellously  efficient,  but  rather 
in  lack  of  broad  judgment  and  common  sense; 
inabiHty  to  forecast  the  effects  of  "  Schrecklich- 
keit,"  of  unrestricted  submarine  warfare,  of  arro- 
gant and  violent  propaganda.  All  this  is  evidence 
of  overspecialization  with  a  corresponding  lack  of 
balance. 

We  see  many  evidences  of  such  overspecializa- 
tion in  our  own  country — theologians  who  think 
they  know  the  whole  counsel  of  God  but  who  have 
a  very  insufficient  knowledge  of  human  conditions 
and  needs;  educators  who  have  elaborated  mar- 
vellous theories  but  can  never  make  them  work; 
psychiatrists  who  can  classify  the  entire  popula- 
tion under  certain  types  of  neuroses  or  psychoses 
but  who  are  themselves  striking  examples  of  lack 
of  balance;  speciaHsts  in  science  or  medicine  or 
law,  whose  overspecialization  leads  them  into  the 
greatest  absurdities.  And  what  are  we  to  con- 
clude when  specialists  differ  so  fundamentally  as  do 
our  greatest  authorities  in  constitutional  govern- 
ment and  international  law  on  the  merits  or  de- 
merits of  the  League  of  Nations?  The  common 
people  may  not  know  much  about  this  subject, 
but  they  cannot  differ  more  widely  than  do  the 
experts. 

However,  out  of  all   such   conflicts  of  opinion 


122  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

there  is  apt  to  come  in  time  balance  and  poise, 
just  as  out  of  the  struggle  for  physical  existence 
there  comes  adjustment  and  adaptation.  It  is 
not  without  reason  that  we  call  those  judgments 
which  have  been  reached  by  multitudes  of  men  as 
the  result  of  "trial  and  error,"  and  finally  trial 
and  success,  "common  sense,"  and  recognize  it 
as  the  highest  type  of  practical  judgment. 

Our  lack  of  co-operation  has  been  even  more  evi- 
dent than  that  of  specialization.  Insistence  on 
personal  freedom  and  on  the  rights  of  individuals 
has  gone  far  toward  weakening  the  bonds  of  union 
and  destroying  co-operation.  The  disharmonies  of 
society,  and  the  conflicts  of  interests  and  minds  and 
purposes,  have  come  largely  from  the  exalting  of 
individual  rights  over  social  obligations.  We  need 
a  new  Revolution  which  will  enforce  the  duties  of 
man,  as  our  former  Revolution  emphasized  the 
rights  of  man.  How  easily  the  disharmonies  of 
society  could  be  silenced,  and  the  conflicts  between 
individuals  and  classes  and  nations  could  be  settled, 
if  men  were  taught  to  think  more  of  their  duties 
and  less  of  their  rights.  Unquestionably  the  fur- 
ther evolution  of  society  must  lie  in  the  direction 
of  greater  co-operation,  and  any  system  of  organi- 
zation which  exalts  individual  freedom  to  the  detri- 
ment of  social  union  and  harmony  must  go  under 
in  the  struggle  for  existence. 

These  very  serious  defects  in  our  social  organiza- 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  123 

tion  are  not  so  much  the  results  of  democracy 
as  of  the  character,  education,  and  condition  of 
the  people;  the  perfection  or  imperfection  of  the 
social  system  is  a  reflection  of  the  popular  intelli- 
gence and  morality.  Ignorant  and  selfish  ideals  of 
democracy,  or  of  any  other  social  system,  may  lead 
astray  whole  nations  and  generations,  but  democ- 
racy itself  is  not  responsible  for  the  ignorance, 
selfishness,  and  hate  which  exist  in  the  world; 
rather,  these  evils  have  been  greatly  intensified  by 
the  lack  of  genuine  democracy. 

The  greatest  problem  which  confronts  all  types 
of  government  is  the  problem  of  social  co-operation. 
It  was  the  failure  of  co-operation  rather  than  of 
specialization  which  led  to  the  downfall  of  almost 
every  great  civilization  of  the  past,  and  it  is  this 
danger  especially  which  confronts  the  modern 
world.  With  the  increasing  size  of  social  units, 
specialization  does,  to  a  considerable  extent,  take 
care  of  itself,  but  co-operation  under  these  condi- 
tions tends  to  grow  weaker.  Efficient  co-operation 
may,  for  a  time,  be  forced  upon  a  people  by  a  power- 
ful autocracy,  but  history  has  generally  shown 
that  such  a  course  ends  in  class  antagonisms  and 
the  destruction  of  social  union.  Self-government 
and  majority  rule  are  generally  recognized  as  the 
best  form  of  government  for  intelligent  people; 
a  paternal  form  of  government  may  be  better 
suited  to  ignorant  and  undeveloped  races,  but  only 


124  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

with  the  understanding  that  the  ultimate  purpose 
of  government  is  the  developiHent  of  the  gov- 
erned, and  that  the  end  and  aim  of  social  evolution 
is  co-operation  without  compulsion.  A  genuine 
democracy  seeks  and  obtains  a  degree  of  co-opera- 
tion which  compulsion  can  never  obtain. 

False  ideals  of  democratic  liberty  and  equality 
have  done,  and  are  still  doing,  vast  harm  in  the 
world.  It  is  the  duty  of  all  who  love  democracy  to 
resist  these  false  ideals  and  to  promote  those  which 
are  consistent  with  social  progress.  Real  democratic 
freedom  is  not  the  freedom  of  isolation,  nor  of 
anarchy;  the  liberty  for  which  the  peoples  of  the 
world  are  fighting  and  dying  is  not  the  liberty  of 
a  Robinson  Crusoe  who  is  ''monarch  of  all  he  sur- 
veys," nor  yet  the  lawlessness  of  anarchy  and  revo- 
lution; it  is  not  freedom  to  plunder  or  oppress  or 
dominate  others,  but  the  freedom  of  fellowship, 
common  service,  and  mutual  esteem;  not  freedom 
from  general  social  control,  but  freedom  from  the 
tyranny  of  selfish  individuals  and  classes.  Normal 
human  beings  do  not  desire  a  kind  of  freedom  like 
that  of  cancer  cells,  for  example,  which  run  riot 
without  regard  to  the  welfare  of  the  organism, 
but  rather  a  freedom  like  that  of  the  normal  cells 
of  the  body,  each  of  which  is  a  unit,  preserving  its 
own  individuality,  and  to  a  certain  extent  its  own 
independence,  and  free  to  do  the  work  for  which  it 
•is  fitted  under  the  control  of  the  body  as  a  whole. 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  125 

Men  do  not  desire  a  freedom  like  that  of  the  soli- 
tary wasp,  which  lives  and  works  alone,  but  rather 
a  freedom  like  that  of  ants  or  bees  in  a  colony 
where  each  individual  is  free  to  serve  as  best  it  can 
under  the  control  of  the  colony  as  a  whole,  or  of 
what  MaeterUnck  calls,  "the  spirit  of  the  hive." 
It  is  a  mistake  to  ascribe  monarchical  or  class  ideals 
drawn  from  human  society  to  the  ant  or  bee  colony. 
The  so-called  "kings,"  "queens,"  "soldiers,"  and 
"workers"  are  in  no  sense  rulers  or  subjects  or 
favored  classes.  Each  does  "what  seems  good  in 
his  sight,"  namely  the  work  which  it  is  fitted  by 
nature  to  do,  and  there  is  no  ruler  but  instinct; 
each  shares  in  common  prosperity  and  hardships, 
and  is  esteemed  according  to  its  capacity  to  serve 
the  common  good.  Democracy  can  offer,  and 
normal  human  beings  can  desire,  no  other  freedom 
for  the  individual  than  this — based  however  on 
reason  and  ethics  rather  than  upon  tropisms  and 
instincts. 

But  there  is  a  vastly  larger  and  more  important 
freedom  which  democracy  brings  to  society  as  a 
whole.  The  freedom  of  the  individual  man  is  to 
that  of  society  as  the  freedom  of  a  single  cell  is  to 
that  of  the  human  being.  It  is  this  larger  freedom  of 
society,  rather  than  the  freedom  of  the  individual, 
which  democracy  offers  to  the  world;  free  socie- 
ties, free  states,  free  nations  rather  than  absolutely 
free  individuals.    In  all  organisms,  and  in  all  social 


126  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

organizations,  the  freedom  of  the  minor  units  must 
be  limited  in  order  that  the  larger  imit  may  achieve 
a  new  and  greater  freedom;  and  in  social  evolution 
the  freedom  of  individuals  must  be  merged  more 
and  more  into  the  larger  freedom  of  society.  The 
liberty  which  we  worship  is  not,  or  at  least  should 
not  be,  that  of  the  individual,  but  rather  that  of 
society  as  a  whole — the  freedom  of  nations  and 
races  rather  than  that  of  individuals,  the  self- 
determination  of  peoples  rather  than  of  persons. 
This  is  the  biological  ideal  of  freedom,  and  it  should 
also  be  the  democratic  ideal. 


V 

DEMOCRATIC  EQUALITY  VS. 
HEREDITARY  INEQUALITY 

Equality  is  one  of  the  most  important  factors 
in  producing  social  harmony.  It  is  the  dearest 
one  of  the  democratic  graces.  'And  now  abideth 
Liberty,  Fraternity,  Equality,  but  the  greatest  of 
these  is  Equality.'  The  creed  of  democracy  has 
generally  been  that  all  men  are  created  equal, 
and  that  the  inequalities  which  exist  are  due  to 
environment,  education,  or  opportunity. 

And  yet  nothing  is  more  evident  than  the  ine- 
qualities of  personality,  intelligence,  usefulness, 
and  influence;  and  the  inequaHties  of  heredity 
are  greater  even  than  those  of  environment.  Re- 
cent work  on  development  and  evolution  shows  that 
the  influence  of  environment  is  relatively  slight, 
that  of  heredity  overwhelming.  Not  only  poets, 
but  also  scholars,  statesmen,  leaders,  and  laborers 
are  born  and  not  made.  Hereditary  inequahty 
has  always  been  the  strong  fortress  of  aristocracy, 
and  scientific  studies  of  heredity  seem  on  first 
thought  to  support  the  contentions  of  aristocracy 
in  this  respect  rather  than  those  of  democracy. 

How  shall  we  harmonize  the  teachings  of  biology 

with  those  of  democracy;   the  proven  inequaUties 

U7 


128  EVOLUTION  AND   DEMOCRACY 

of  heredity  with  the  assumed  equality  of  man? 
Shall  we  revise  our  ideas  of  heredity,  or  of  democ- 
racy? I  have  sometimes  been  asked:  ''Do  you 
believe  in  heredity;  how  then  can  you  believe  in 
democracy?  Do  you  believe  in  equality;  how 
then  can  you  believe  in  heredity?" 

Aristocracy  is  founded  upon  an  obsolete  idea  of 
heredity,  namely  the  "law  of  entail."  It  confuses 
social  and  biological  inheritance.  A  son  may  in- 
herit the  property  of  his  father  but  not  his  per- 
sonality; under  the  law  of  primogeniture  the  oldest 
son  inherits  the  kingdom,  titles,  privileges  of  his 
father  in  their  entirety,  but  not  his  intelligence, 
character,  and  personality.  In  natural  or  biologi- 
cal inheritance  the  germinal  causes  of  the  traits  of 
the  parents  are  separated  and  are  redistributed  to 
their  offspring  so  that  the  latter  are  "mosaics" 
of  ancestral  traits.  These  germinal  causes  of  traits, 
which  are  called  genes,  are  transmitted  unchanged, 
but  in  the  fertilization  of  the  egg  one-half  of  the 
genes  from  each  parent  is  lost  and  is  replaced  by 
half  from  the  other  parent.  So  numerous  are  these 
genes  that  the  combinations  of  them  in  the  off- 
spring are  rarely,  if  ever,  the  same  in  two  indi- 
viduals, and  so  complex  is  their  influence  upon 
one  another  and  upon  the  process  of  development, 
that  no  two  sexually  produced  individuals  are  ever 
exactly  aUke.  Consequently  the  best  traits  may 
appear  in  parents  and  be  lost  in  their  offspring; 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  129 

genius  in  an  ancestor,  may  be  replaced  by  incompe- 
tence, imbecility,  or  insanity  in  a  descendant.  As 
each  generation  must  start  life  anew  from  the  germ 
cells,  so  in  every  person  there  is  a  new  distribution 
of  hereditary  factors  or  genes.  Every  person  has  a 
new  hereditary  deal,  if  not  always  a  square  one. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  some  traits,  or  rather 
their  genes,  are  dominant  and  others  recessive, 
certain  of  the  latter  may  be  carried  along  for  sev- 
eral generations  in  a  latent  condition  only  to  appear 
in  some  later  offspring  in  which  the  dominant  gene 
is  not  present.  Feeble-mindedness,  for  example, 
is  a  recessive  character,  and  East  has  calculated 
that  it  is  present  in  a  recessive  form  in  one  person 
out  of  fourteen  of  the  entire  population  of  this 
country,  but  it  does  not  actually  appear  unless  two 
of  these  recessive  genes  come  together  in  a  ferti- 
lized egg.  On  the  other  hand,  feeble-mindedness 
and  other  recessive  characters  become  latent  when 
mated  with  normal  and  dominant  characters. 
The  later  history  of  the  famous,  or  rather  infamous, 
''Jukes  family"  shows  that  many  of  the  descen- 
dants are  normal  and  useful  citizens  probably  be- 
cause their  parents  married  into  normal  families. 

This  is  the  great  law  of  heredity  discovered  by 
Mendel,  and  it  differs  fundamentally  from  the  law 
of  entail.  Property  may  be  entailed,  but  not  per- 
sonahty;  titles  and  privileges,  but  not  character 
and  abihty.    With  the  law  of  entail  in  mind,  it  is 


I30  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

not  surprising  that  strict  hereditarians  should  have 
questioned  the  reputed  parentage  of  Jesus,  or  Shake- 
speare, or  Lincoln,  or  that  lovers  of  democracy 
should  have  refused  to  believe  in  this  kind  of  he- 
redity; but  the  law  of  entail  is  of  man's  making, 
while,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  law  of  Mendel  is 
the  only  law  of  natural  inheritance. 

Think  of  the  great  men  of  unknown  lineage,  and 
the  unknown  men  of  great  lineage;  think  of  the 
close  relationship  of  all  persons  of  the  same  race; 
of  the  wide  distribution  of  good  and  bad  traits  in 
the  whole  population;  of  incompetence  and  even 
feeble-mindedness  in  great  families,  and  of  genius 
and  greatness  in  unknown  f amiUes,  and  say  whether 
natural  inheritance  supports  the  claims  of  aristoc- 
racy or  of  democracy. 

When  we  remember  that  most  of  the  great  lead- 
ers of  mankind  came  of  humble  parents;  that  many 
of  the  greatest  geniuses  had  the  most  lowly  origin; 
that  Shakespeare  was  the  son  of  a  bankrupt  butcher 
and  an  ignorant  woman  who  could  not  write  her 
name,  that  as  a  youth  he  is  said  to  have  been 
known  more  for  poaching  than  for  scholarship,  and 
that  his  acquaintance  with  the  London  theatres  be- 
gan by  his  holding  horses  for  their  patrons;  that 
Beethoven's  mother  was  a  consumptive,  the  daugh- 
ter of  a  cook,  and  his  father  a  confirmed  drunkard; 
that  Schubert's  father  was  a  peasant  by  birth  and 
his  mother  a  domestic  servant;  that  Faraday,  per- 
haps the  greatest  scientific  discoverer  of  any  age. 


EVOLUTION  AND   DEMOCRACY  131 

was  born  over  a  stable,  his  father  a  poor  sick  black- 
smith, his  mother  an  ignorant  drudge,  and  his  only 
education  obtained  in  selling  newspapers  on  the 
streets  of  London  and  later  in  working  as  appren- 
tice to  a  bookbinder;  that  the  great  Pasteur  was 
the  son  of  a  tanner;  that  Lincoln's  parents  were 
accounted  "poor  white  trash"  and  his  early  sur- 
roundings and  education  most  unpromising;  and 
so  on  through  the  long  list  of  names  in  which 
democracy  glories — when  we  remember  these  we 
may  well  ask  whether  aristocracy  can  show  a  better 
record.  The  law  of  entail  is  aristocratic,  but  the 
law  of  Mendel  is  democratic. 

Quaint  old  Thomas  Fuller  wrote  many  years  ago 
in  his  ''Scripture  Observations," 

"I  find,  Lord,  the  genealogy  of  my  Saviour  strangely 
checkered  with  four  remarkable  changes  in  four  immediate 
generations: — 

1.  Roboam  begat  Abia,  that  is  a  bad  father  a  bad  son. 

2.  Abia  begat  Asa,  that  is  a  bad  father  a  good  son. 

3.  Asa  begat  Josaphat,  that  is  a  good  father  a  good  son. 

4.  Josaphat  begat  Joram,  that  is  a  good  father  a  bad  son. 
I  can  see,  Lord,  from  hence  that  my  father's  piety  cannot 

be  entailed;  that  is  bad  news  for  me.  But  I  see  also  that 
actual  impiety  is  not  always  hereditary;  that  is  good  news 
for  my  son." 

It  may  be  objected  that  I  have  ended  by  deny- 
ing that  there  is  any  inheritance,  at  least  so  far  as 
intellectual  and  social  qualities  are  concerned,  but 
this  is  not  the  case.  While  it  is  true  that  good  and 
bad  hereditary  traits  are  widely  distributed  among 


132  EVOLUTION  AND   DEMOCRACY 

all  classes  and  conditions  of  men,  they  are  not 
equally  distributed.  On  the  contrary  the  chances  of 
good  or  bad  traits  appearing  in  offspring  are  much 
higher  in  some  famiHes  than  in  others,  but  no  family 
has  a  monopoly  of  good  or  bad  traits,  and  no  social 
system  can  afford  to  ignore  the  great  personages 
that  appear  in  obscure  families,  or  to  exalt  nonenti- 
ties to  leadership  because  they  belong  to  great 
families.  In  short,  preferment  and  distinction 
should  depend  upon  individual  worth  and  not  upon 
family  name  or  position.  This  is  orthodox  demo- 
cratic doctrine,  but  not  the  faith  or  practice  of 
aristocracy. 

Finally  democratic  equahty  does  not  now  mean, 
and  has  never  in  the  past  meant,  that  all  men  are 
equal  in  personality.  It  is  not  a  denial  of  personal 
inequaHties,  but  is  the  only  genuine  recognition  of 
them.  On  the  other  hand,  rigid  family  and  class 
distinctions  are  denials  of  individual  distinctions. 
Democratic  equality  does  not  mean  equality  of 
heredity,  environment,  education,  or  possessions; 
least  of  all  does  it  mean  equality  of  intelligence, 
usefulness,  or  influence. 

It  does  mean  equality  before  the  law,  equal 
justice  for  all,  no  special  privileges  due  merely  to 
birth,  freedom  to  find  one's  work  and  place  in 
society.  In  short  it  means  that  every  man  shall  be 
measured  by  his  own  merits,  and  not  by  the  merits 
of  some  ancestor  whose  good  traits  may  have 
passed  to  a  collateral  line. 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  133 

Democracy  alone  permits  a  natural  classification 
of  men  with  respect  to  social  value,  as  contrasted 
with  all  artificial  and  conventional  classifications. 
It  contributes  more  than  any  other  system  of 
government  to  the  contentment,  happiness,  sta- 
bility, and  peace  of  a  nation.  It  brings  a  message 
of  justice,  and  hope,  and  inspiration  to  people  in 
all  walks  of  life.  It  inspires  the  youth  of  a  land 
with  visions  and  living  examples  of 

"...  Some  divinely  gifted  man 
Whose  life  in  low  estate  began 
And  on  a  simple  village  green; 

Who  breaks  his  birth's  invidious  bar, 
And  grasps  the  skirts  of  happy  chance, 
And  breasts  the  blows  of  circumstance 

And  grapples  with  his  evil  star; 

And  moving  up  from  high  to  higher, 
Becomes  on  Fortune's  crowning  slope 
The  pillar  of  a  people's  hope, 

The  centre  of  a  world's  desire." 

This  was  the  passion  which  fired  the  souls  of  our 
fathers  and  led  them  to  establish  this  great  Repub- 
lic, and  this  is  the  power  and  inspiration  which  recall 
us  at  this  great  crisis  in  the  history  of  the  world 
from  our  artificial  aristocracies,  and  plutocracies, 
and  class  distinctions  to  a  genuine  democracy. 


VI 

UNIVERSAL  FRATERNITY  VS.  NATIONAL 
AND   CLASS  ANTAGONISMS 

Evolution  shows  that  we  are  all  cousins  if  not 
brothers.  The  lines  of  descent  from  innumerable 
ancestors  converge  in  us,  and  will  radiate  from  us 
to  innumerable  descendants.  Genealogists  picture 
descent  as  a  tree  in  which  the  trunk  represents 
some  single  ancestor  and  the  branches  all  of  his 
descendants,  but  such  a  representation  is  wholly 
at  variance  with  biological  facts  because  in  sexual 
reproduction  every  person  has  two  parents.  The 
''genealogical  tree"  is  the  result  of  an  attempt  to 
trace  descent  back  to  some  one  distinguished 
ancestor  while  ignoring  all  others.  The  various 
branches  of  a  family  do  not  trace  back  to  a  single 
trunk,  but  rather  to  an  increasing  number  of 
branches.  A  graphic  representation  of  descent 
is  not  a  tree  but  a  net  in  which  every  individual  is 
represented  by  a  knot  formed  by  the  union  of  two 
lines  which  may  be  traced  backward  and  forward 
to  an  ever-increasing  number  of  knots  and  lines 
until  all  are  united  in  this  vast  genealogical  net  of 
humanity.  If  the  number  of  our  ancestors  doubled 
in  each  ascending  generation,  as  it  would  do  if 

134 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  135 

the  marriage  of  cousins  of  various  degrees  did  not 
take  place,  each  of  us  would  be  descended  from 
more  than  a  billion  ancestors  of  a  thousand  years 
ago,  let  us  say  in  the  reign  of  William  the  Conqueror. 
Even  allowing  for  numerous  intermarriages  of 
relatives  it  is  highly  probable  that  all  people  of 
English  or  French  or  German  stock  are  descended 
from  common  ancestors  of  a  thousand  years  ago. 

A  book  *  has  been  pubHshed  recently  in  which 
several  of  our  Presidents,  heads  of  universities, 
and  captains  of  industry  and  finance  are  shown  to 
be  descended  from  Charlemagne.  This  distinction 
is  one  which  they  share  with  probably  more  than 
half  of  the  citizens  of  this  Republic.  Einhard, 
the  contemporary  biographer  of  Charlemagne, 
says  that  he  had  nine  wives,  besides  many  concu- 
bines, and  although  he  was  fond  of  his  children  he 
never  knew  how  many  he  had.  If  it  were  possible 
to  trace  our  genealogies  far  enough  into  the  past 
and  through  all  their  ramifications  it  would  be 
found  that  all  of  us  are  Hterally  descendants  of 
royalty,  of  Alfred  and  Charlemagne  and  William 
the  Conqueror  and  of  any  and  every  other  person 
of  one  thousand  or  more  years  ago  who  left  many 
descendants — including  nonentities  and  worse;  we 
hunt  up  our  noble  ancestors  and  forget  the  others. 

John  G.  Saxe,  formerly  known  as  the  poet  of 
democracy,  once  wrote: 

*  Browning,  Charles  R.    "Americans  of  Royal  Descent." 


136  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

"Depend  upon  it,  my  snobbish  friend, 
Your  family  line  you  can't  ascend 
Without  good  reason  to  apprehend 
You'll  find  it  waxed  at  the  farther  end 
By  some  plebeian  vocation. 
Or,  worse  than  that,  your  boasted  line 
May  end  in  a  loop  of  stronger  twine. 
The  plague  of  some  worthy  relation." 

But  while  our  lines  of  descent  lead  back  to  practi- 
cally all  people  of  the  same  race  and  country  of  a 
thousand  or  more  years  ago,  we  have  inherited  our 
traits  of  character  from  only  a  very  small  number 
of  these  ancestors.  It  is  known  that  inheritance 
passes  from  one  generation  to  the  next  in  the  germ 
cells,  and  more  specifically  in  the  chromosomes  or 
deeply  staining  threads  found  in  the  nuclei  of 
those  cells. 

The  number  of  chromosomes  is  constant  for 
every  species,  and  typically  each  chromosome  has 
come  down  in  unbroken  lineage  from  previous 
generations.  But  in  the  formation  of  the  germ 
cells  one-half  of  the  specific  number  is  thrown  away 
and  when  egg  and  sperm  unite  the  specific  number 
is  again  restored. 

In  man  there  are  probably  forty-eight  chromo- 
somes, twenty-four  from  the  father  and  twenty- 
four  from  the  mother;  but  these  are  usually  de- 
rived in  unequal  numbers  from  the  four  grand- 
parents; for  example,  sixteen  may  come  from  the 
paternal  grandfather  and  eight  from  the  paternal 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  137 

grandmother,  four  from  the  maternal  grandfather 
and  twenty  from  the  maternal  grandmother,  or  the 
number  which  comes  from  each  grandparent  may 
vary  all  the  way  from  twenty-four  to  naught. 
One  or  more  of  the  eight  great-grandparents  may 
have  furnished  no  chromosomes  and  no  inherited 
traits  to  the  great-grandchild,  and  finally  no  one 
in  the  world  can  inherit  chromosomes  (or  traits) 
from  more  than  forty-eight  contemporary  ancestors, 
assuming  that  the  chromosomes  preserve  their 
identity,  since  no  one  has  more  than  forty-eight 
chromosomes.  Consequently,  although  each  of  us 
has  had  thousands  of  ancestors,  he  has  had  only  a 
small  number  of  transmitters.*  Many  a  person 
bears  the  name  of  some  distinguished  ancestor  but 
does  not  have  a  single  one  of  his  chromosomes  or 
hereditary  traits,  whereas  others  who  do  not  bear 
his  name,  and  are  usually  reckoned  as  collateral 
descendants,  have  received  his  chromosomes  and 
are  his  true  inheritors. 

There  has  been  much  foolish  talk  and  loose 
thinking  regarding  old  families  and  length  of  de- 
scent.   As  Tennyson  says: 

"The  gardener  Adam  and  his  wife 
Smile  at  the  claims  of  long  descent." 

In  length  of  descent  we  are  all  equal,  and  in  com- 

*  I  am  indebted  to  my  colleagues,  Dean  West  and  Professor 
Abbott,  for  suggesting  this  word  to  indicate  those  ancestors  from 
whom  chromosomes  and  hereditary  traits  are  derived. 


138  EVOLUTION  AND   DEMOCRACY 

munity  of  descent  we  are  all  cousins  if  not  brothers. 
Our  lines  stretch  out  to  all  our  race.  Each  individ- 
ual or  family  is  not  a  separate  and  independent 
entity,  but  merely  a  minor  unit  in  the  great  organ- 
ism of  mankind.  Biology  and  the  Bible  agree  that 
"God  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men." 
There  are  no  really  pure  lines  of  human  descent, 
and  few  isolated  stocks,  and  these  owe  their  origin 
to  geographical  isolation  rather  than  to  anything 
else.  There  has  been,  and  still  is,  abundant  inter- 
breeding among  all  minor  varieties  and  races  of 
men,  and  as  a  result  mankind  is  a  hopelessly  mon- 
grel species.  Indeed,  in  this  respect  man  is  like 
any  other  wide-ranging  species.  He  has  no  such 
claim  to  ancestral  purity  as  has  any  pure  breed 
of  domesticated  animals  and  plants.  Man  is  indeed 
a  wild  species  and  cannot  be  domesticated  because 
there  is  no  one  to  domesticate  him. 

As  a  result  of  this  common  descent  the  resem- 
blances between  all  types  of  men  are  vastly  more 
numerous  and  important  than  the  differences. 
This  fact  is  especially  evident  to  the  biologist,  for 
even  the  types  which  differ  most  widely,  such  as 
the  white,  yellow,  and  black  races,  are  evidently 
only  varieties  or  subspecies  of  Homo  sapiens, 
while  no  other  existing  creature  can  be  placed  in 
the  same  zoological  genus  or  family  with  man. 
When  I  reflect  upon  the  resemblances  between  all 
men  and  the  differences  which  separate  man  from 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  139 

all  other  animals,  I  think  I  can  understand  the 
words  of  a  prayer  which  I  used  to  hear  when  I 
was  a  boy:  "We  thank  thee.  Lord,  that  thou  hast 
made  us  men." 

Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  this  universal  brother- 
hood of  man,  racial,  varietal,  national,  and  class 
antagonisms  have  arisen  everywhere  and  have  often 
led  to  terrible  hostilities.  Racial  and  varietal  differ- 
ences represent  a  natural  classification  based  upon 
physical  characteristics.  There  are  also  undoubt- 
edly intellectual  and  social  differences  between 
these  major  subdivisions  of  the  species,  which  tend 
to  cause  a  natural  and  desirable  social  segrega- 
tion of  races,  but  while  our  instincts  lead  to  such 
segregation  they  do  not  lead  to  nor  justify  racial 
antagonisms.  The  fundamental  instincts  of  all 
types  of  men  are  so  essentially  similar  that  all  may, 
and  often  do,  live  together  harmoniously;  and  the 
co-operation  of  all  types  of  men  in  organized  society 
is  so  much  a  matter  of  education  and  environment 
that  it  has  been  demonstrated  again  and  again, 
and  nowhere  better  than  in  this  country,  that 
persons  of  the  most  distinct  races  may  have  the 
same  social  ideals  and  may  co-operate  in  mutual 
helpfulness  in  the  realization  of  those  ideals. 

When  we  come  to  those  minor  subdivisions 
represented  by  the  so-called  races  of  Europe, 
the  natural  distinctions  are  usually  so  slight  that 
they  form  no  barrier  to  the  most  intimate  associa- 


I40  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

tion  and  co-operation.  Most  Americans  represent 
mixtures  of  English,  French,  German,  Scandina- 
vian, and  other  European  stocks  and  we  generally 
think  that  the  result  is  good,  not  only  physically 
but  also  intellectually  and  socially.  The  inherent 
antagonisms  between  these  stocks  that  agitators 
and  designing  politicians  tell  us  about  are  really 
not  inherent  at  all,  but  are  largely  created,  culti- 
vated, and  magnified  by  hostile  words  and  deeds 
for  national  and  selfish  purposes. 

Race  antagonism  is  almost  always  the  outgrowth 
of  ignorance  and  bigotry,  and  it  is  never  judicial 
or  scientific.  It  is  easy  to  hate  and  despise  people 
whom  you  do  not  know;  perhaps  this  is  a  survival 
of  an  ancient  instinct  to  repel  foreigners.  On  the 
other  hand,  knowledge  usually  brings  sympathy; 
"To  know  all  is  to  pardon  all."  In  any  event  a 
scientific  study  of  different  races  reveals  much  that 
is  admirable  and  praiseworthy  in  each,  and  all  who 
love  the  truth  will  welcome  the  movement  for  race- 
appreciation  begun  by  scientists  and  philanthro- 
pists in  different  parts  of  the  world.* 

As  race  antagonisms  are  generally  the  result  of 
bad  education,  so  they  may  be  overcome  by  good 
training.  Hope  for  the  peace  and  progress  of  the 
world  must  rest  largely  upon  the  general  cultiva- 
tion of  a  spirit  of  tolerance  and  sympathy  for  other 
groups  than  our  own,   a  realization  of  the  fact 

*  Means,  P,  A.     "Racial  Factors  in  Democracy,"  Boston,  1919. 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  141 

that  good  as  well  as  bad  qualities  are  found  in  all 
classes,  nations,  and  races,  and  a  spirit  of  justice 
that  is  willing  to  recognize  and  reward  good  quali- 
ties wherever  they  may  be  found. 

The  splendid  ideals  of  personal  service  and  sacri- 
fice, and  of  national  and  international  co-operation, 
which  attended  the  World  War  have  now  largely 
passed  away  and  a  spirit  of  antagonism  between 
classes,  nations,  races,  and  even  religions  has 
spread  over  the  world.  Bigotry  has  taken  the  place 
of  sympathy,  selfishness  of  service.  This  is  partly 
due  to  a  natural  reaction  from  an  unaccustomed 
idealism,  but  in  part  it  is  the  result  of  the  de- 
liberate efforts  of  narrow-minded  leaders  to  cul- 
tivate what  they  euphemistically  call  class  and 
race  consciousness,  nationalism,  and  patriotism,  but 
what  in  reality  are  class  and  race  hatreds  and 
national  arrogance.  The  very  men  who  are  now 
preaching  "America  first"  were  recently  damning 
those  who  sang  "Deutschland  iiber  Alles."  They 
are  now  counselhng  national  selfishness,  but  at  the 
same  time  are  loud  in  their  condemnation  of  labor 
unions  and  Soviets  that  are  showing  a  similar 
spirit  of  narrowness. 

There  is  only  one  cure  for  this  sickness  of  society, 
this  failure  of  the  democratic  ideal  of  fraternity, 
and  that  is  education — the  cultivation  of  reason 
instead  of  passion,  of  co-operation  in  place  of 
antagonism,  of  humanity  rather  than  nationalism. 


142  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

Unless  these  centrifugal  tendencies  can  be  over- 
come, they  will  surely  lead  to  the  destruction  of 
our  civilization. 

But  even  the  end  of  our  civilization  need  not 
mean,  and  probably  would  not  mean,  the  end  of  all 
social  evolution.  Other  civilizations  would  prob- 
ably arise  on  the  ruins  of  ours  as  ours  has  succeeded 
many  others.  The  teachings  of  biology  and  of 
human  history  indicate  that  further  social  progress 
must  lie  in  the  direction  of  the  rational  co-opera- 
tion of  all  mankind.  Whether  our  civilization  sur- 
vives or  not,  the  probabilities  are,  that  sometime 
these  ideals  of  rational  co-operation  and  of  demo- 
cratic fraternity  will  prevail. 

Unfortunately  for  the  present  generation  of  men, 
social  evolution  has  not  yet  advanced  to  the  point 
where  altruism  is  stronger  than  selfishness  and 
where  it  is  harder  to  stir  up  strife  than  to  allay  it. 
If  those  only  who  preach  and  practise  selfishness 
were  to  fall  victims  to  it  and  those  only  who  take 
the  sword  were  to  perish  by  the  sword,  the  elimina- 
tion of  the  antisocial  would  be  more  rapid.  But 
although  many  innocent  ones  perish  with  the  guilty, 
nevertheless  social  evolution  is  moving  toward  the 
elimination  of  the  antisocial.  Progress  is  often 
slow  and  there  are  many  back  currents,  but  the 
long  view  of  social  evolution  and  of  human  his- 
tory justifies  the  hope  that  there  will  come  a  time 
when  altruism  will  be  stronger  than  selfishness. 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  143 

and  democratic  fraternity,  than  national  and  class 
hostility. 

The  biologist  must  look  with  concern  upon  the 
breaking  up  of  European  nations  into  minor  inde- 
pendent units  along  lines  of  language,  customs,  or 
education,  just  as  the  intelligent  American  would 
deprecate  the  breaking  up  of  his  own  country 
along  similar  hues.  Biological  and  social  progress 
does  not  generally  lie  in  that  direction,  as  the  course 
of  evolution  clearly  shows.  In  so  far  as  the  differ- 
ences between  peoples  are  due  to  environmental 
causes,  they  may  be,  to  a  great  extent,  removed. 
The  most  effective  size  of  governmental  units 
must  vary  with  the  possibihties  of  integration 
and  co-operation  of  the  constituent  parts,  and 
these  possibihties  are  favored  by  homogeneity  of 
race,  language,  and  education,  and  by  ease  of  inter- 
communication. All  of  these,  except  race,  are 
environmental  factors  and  are  to  a  large  extent 
subject  to  social  control. 

Even  when  differences  are  so  great  that  segre- 
gation is  desirable,  it  is  usually  possible  to  unite 
these  smaller  units  into  a  larger  federation,  as  the 
history  of  this  nation  has  demonstrated.  Indeed 
this  is  the  only  democratic  way  of  counteracting 
the  social  and  national  disintegration  which  is  so 
imminent  in  parts  of  Europe  to-day.  With  the 
greatly  increased  facilities  for  communication  and 
education  which  exist  in  the  modern  world  enor- 


144  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

mous  national  units  of  federated  states  are  possible, 
including  as  in  the  case  of  the  British  Empire 
one-fourth  or  one-fifth  of  the  entire  human  species 
under  one  general  government,  and  it  does  not  seem 
impossible  that  the  greater  part  of  the  other  three- 
fourths  or  four-fifths  may  yet  be  brought  into 
some  sort  of  federation.  As  the  union  of  many 
cells  into  one  body,  the  union  of  many  persons  into 
one  colony,  the  union  of  many  colonies  into  one 
nation  have  marked  great  advances  in  evolution 
so,  let  us  hope,  the  union  of  many  nations  into  the 
''Parliament  of  man,  the  Federation  of  the  world" 
will  mark  the  next  great  step  in  human  progress. 

Finally,  when  we  come  to  those  minor  class 
distinctions  which  are  based  only  upon  occupa- 
tion, wealth,  or  social  position  we  have  the  most 
artificial  and  unnatural  classification  of  all;  and 
the  antagonisms  between  these  classes,  which  are 
engendered  and  fomented  by  designing  agitators, 
are  not  only  non-instinctive,  but  they  are  usually 
anti-instinctive  and  utterly  irrational.  This  is  not 
to  say  that  men  should  not  associate  in  congenial 
groups  which  have  common  interests  and  ideals; 
such  associations  are  natural  and  inevitable;  but 
when  attempts  are  made  to  array  one  group  or 
class  against  another  and  to  make  these  classes 
permanent  and  hereditary,  an  artificial  disharmony 
is  introduced  into  society  which  can  work  only 
disastrously. 


EVOLUTION  AND   DEMOCRACY  145 

Hereditary  social  classes  such  as  exist  in  many 
parts  of  Europe  are  the  antithesis  of  democracy. 
That  which  is  hereditary  in  such  classes  is  not 
necessarily  personal  merit,  but  purely  environ- 
mental advantages  or  disadvantages.  Such  arti- 
ficial distinctions  largely  ignore  the  natural  abili- 
ties or  disabilities  of  men  and  are  fundamentally 
unjust  and  undemocratic.  On  the  other  hand, 
classes  such  as  are  found  in  schools,  which  are 
based  upon  personal  merit,  and  in  which  every 
one  is  free  to  pass  from  6ne  class  to  another  de- 
pending upon  his  ability,  are  not  only  wholly 
democratic,  but  are  absolutely  necessary  to  a  well- 
organized  society. 

Means  says:  "The  perfect  democracy  will  be  a 
state  in  which  there  will  be  classes  absolutely 
rigid  as  to  their  functions  for  society  but  abso- 
lutely fluid  as  to  the  individuals  who  compose  them. 
A  man's  or  a  woman's  position  in  society  will,  in 
such  a  state,  be  determined  by  his  or  her  peculiar 
aptitude  and  talents,  not  by  hereditary  position, 
nor  by  nepotism,  nor  by  human  authority,  but 
solely  by  individual  merit."* 

What  could  be  more  wasteful,  absurd,  and  tragic 
than  a  system  of  artificial  class  distinctions  which 
condemns  low-born  genius  to  the  humblest  work 
and  puts  well-born  blockheads  in  exalted  places? 
All  persons  enjoy  most  the  work  which  they  are 

*Loc.  cit.,  p.  158. 


146  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

led  to  believe  that  they  can  do  best,  and  that 
nation  will  be  most  contented  and  most  efficient 
whose  people  are  free  to  find  the  places  in  the 
social  system  for  which  they  are  best  fitted.  This 
is  one  of  the  strongest  arguments  against  hereditary 
classes,  and  in  favor  of  a  genuine  democracy — not 
that  in  such  a  democracy  all  men  are  equal,  but 
that  all  are  free  from  purely  artificial  restraints  in 
finding  their  own  levels.  One  of  the  most  bene- 
ficial influences  of  the  Great  War,  and  of  wars  in 
general,  is  the  breaking  up  of  rigid  class  distinc- 
tions, the  elimination  of  stupid  lords  and  junkers 
and  military  officers,  and  the  elevation  of  men  of 
genius  to  exalted  places,  irrespective  of  birth  or 
social  position. 

Bateson,  the  English  naturalist,  has  tentatively 
expressed  the  opinion  that  hereditary  classes  are 
desirable  from  the  standpoint  of  eugenics,  basing 
this  opinion  no  doubt  upon  the  fact  that  intellec- 
tual and  social  qualities  are  often,  though,  as  he 
sadly  admits,  not  always,  characteristic  of  certain 
families.  No  doubt  the  best  biological  and  social 
results  would  obtain  if  intermarriage  occurred  only 
between  individuals  of  similar  hereditary  types. 
Such  a  segregation  takes  place  naturally  and 
normally  where  instinct  and  inclination  are  not 
interfered  with  by  purely  artificial  restrictions  and 
conventions.  But  even  the  oldest  royal  families, 
and    much    more   our   modern    aristocracies   and 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  147 

pseudo-aristocracies,  are  of  such  mixed  lineage  that 
their  children  vary  greatly  in  ability,  and  it  is 
contrary  to  instinct  and  to  good  breeding  for  a 
woman  of  talent  to  marry  the  stupid  son  of  a 
distinguished  family,  or  for  a  man  of  genius  to 
marry  a  shallow-minded  heiress.  It  would  be  good 
for  society  in  general,  and  for  its  individual  members 
in  particular,  if  every  person  were  free  to  find  his 
or  her  proper  level  both  in  occupation  and  mar- 
riage, irrespective  of  family  obscurity  or  pride. 
In  democratic  America  we  all  rejoice  when  some 
divinely  gifted  rail-splitter  becomes  by  his  own 
merits  the  greatest  figure  of  his  generation,  and 
we  ought  to  rejoice,  though  of  course  regretfully, 
when  the  ungifted  son  of  a  railroad  president  finds 
his  proper  place  working  on  the  track,  or  when  the 
low-minded  heiress  elopes  with  the  coachman. 

When  we  turn  from  the  more  personal  aspects 
of  fixed  social  classes  to  their  control  of  govern- 
ments and  of  public  affairs  in  general,  we  find  that 
the  evidence  of  their  disruptive  and  antisocial 
influences  are  worst  of  all.  The  world  has  had 
experience  of  many  kinds  of  exclusive  class  rule — 
absolute  monarchy,  aristocracy,  middle  class,  and 
proletariat — and  though  some  of  these  have  proved 
better  than  others,  they  have  all  been  bad,  for  they 
have  endangered  or  destroyed  social  unity  and 
harmony,  and  have  ended  sooner  or  later  in  dis- 
aster.   Russia  has  recently  gone  from  one  of  these 


148  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

extremes  to  the  other,  and  the  end  of  the  tyranny 
of  the  proletariat  cannot  long  be  delayed.  An 
autocracy  or  aristocracy  may  be  progressive  and 
efficient,  but  it  is  always  dangerous,  for  no  person 
or  class  is  wise  or  good  enough  to  rule  other  classes 
or  persons  without  their  participation  or  consent. 
Not  only  do  governments  derive  all  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed,  but  they 
derive  their  safety  and  stability  from  this  source  as 
well.  What  a  demonstration  have  the  greatest 
military  autocracies  of  Europe  furnished  the  world 
of  their  utter  weakness  and  helplessness  against  an 
aroused  people ! 

The  strength  and  stability  of  democracies  are 
proportional  to  their  inclusiveness,  their  breadth 
of  base,  whereas  autocracies  are  inverted  pyramids. 
Equal  universal  suffrage  and  majority  rule  are  the 
only  self-regulating  and  self-preserving  mechanisms 
which  have  been  discovered  as  yet  for  harmoniz- 
ing conflicting  interests  in  governments;  they  are 
the  safety-valves  of  society.  Theoretically,  there 
is  danger  that  majority  rule  may  end  in  tyranny 
over  minorities,  but  the  social  instincts  of  justice 
and  fair  play  are  wide-spread  among  men,  and  ex- 
perience has  generally  shown  that  in  the  long  run 
majorities  may  be  counted  upon  to  be  just  to 
minorities  that  play  fair.  The  more  intelligent 
members  of  society  always  have  an  immense  ad- 
vantage over  the  more  ignorant,  and  even  in  a 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  149 

genuine  democracy  the  danger  is  not  so  much  that 
ignorant  and  venal  majorities  may  oppress  the 
better  elements  in  society,  as  that  intelligent  but 
unscrupulous  minorities  may  exercise  tyranny  over 
the  mass  of  the  people  in  spite  of  their  numbers. 

Majority  rule  would  level  society  down  to  gen- 
eral mediocrity  were  it  not  for  the  instinct  of  the 
people  to  follow  leaders.  Modern  democracy  is 
not  the  rule  of  the  people  as  a  whole,  of  ignorant 
masses,  of  "the  blind  god  of  numbers."  A  democ- 
racy, no  less  than  an  autocracy,  is  a  government  by 
leaders,  but  in  the  former  case  these  leaders  are 
chosen  by  the  people  and  are  responsible  to  them 
and  in  the  latter  they  are  not.  Leaders  in  a  de- 
mocracy have  great  power,  and  in  crises  such  as 
war,  their  powers  may  be  temporarily  greatly  in- 
creased, but  they  are  not  autocrats,  for  they  must 
render  to  the  people  an  account  of  their  steward- 
ship. In  no  modern  form  of  government  do  the 
people  as  a  whole  make  plans  for  war  or  peace, 
for  taxation  or  legislation  or  even  party  platforms. 
These  things  are  determined  by  leaders,  and  in 
general  the  mass  of  the  people  hold  them  responsi- 
ble only  for  results.  Government,  no  less  than  per- 
sonal behavior,  proceeds  by  the  principle  of  "trial 
and  error,"  and  the  majority  in  a  democracy  decide 
only  whether  the  results  are  failures  or  successes. 
Furthermore  a  democracy  is  much  more  sensitive 
to  this  test  than  is  any  other  form  of  government. 


I50  EVOLUTION  AND   DEMOCRACY 

for  a  failure  is  quickly  abandoned  and  its  authors 
repudiated.  The  contrast  between  democracy  and 
autocracy  is  not  between  "numbers  and  right- 
ness,"  but  it  is  between  rightness  as  measured  by 
the  effect  upon  the  majority  or  on  only  a  small 
minority  of  the  people. 

This  necessity  for  leaders  emphasizes  the  im- 
portance of  the  individual  in  human  society.  In 
insect  societies  a  single  individual  counts  for  little, 
except  in  the  case  of  the  queen,  upon  whom  the 
reproduction  of  the  colony  depends.  But  in  human 
society  progress,  and  even  survival,  depends  upon 
capable  leaders.  A  leader  of  incalculable  value 
may  be  potential  in  a  boy  or  girl  of  humblest  birth. 
Society  should  see  to  it  that  every  individual  is 
given  the  chance  to  bring  out  the  best  that  is  in 
him.  Hereditary  castes  of  workers,  soldiers,  kings, 
and  queens  are  well  adapted  to  ant  societies  in 
which  individual  leadership  counts  for  little,  but 
they  are  fatal  to  the  highest  welfare  of  human 
society  where  individual  leadership  is  all-impor- 
tant. 

One  of  the  charges  which  has  been  brought 
against  democracy  is  that  it  fails  to  develop  capa- 
ble leaders.  For  example.  Cram*  says:  "Demo- 
cratic government  for  the  last  twenty-five  years 
has  neither  desired  nor  created  leaders  of  an  intel- 

*  Cram,  Ralph  Adams.  "The  Nemesis  of  Mediocrity,"  Boston, 
1917. 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  151 

lectual  or  moral  capacity  above  that  of  the  general 
mass  of  voters,  and  when  by  chance  they  appear 
they  are  abandoned  for  a  type  that  is  not  of  the 
numerical  average  but  below  it,  and  the  standard 
has  been  lowering  itself  for  a  generation." 

Means*  quotes  this  approvingly  and  points  out 
that  our  people  are  showing  a  general  decay  of 
morals.  He  says  he  has  seen,  in  a  certain  Eastern 
city,  "young  men  and  women,  who  had  ancestors 
among  that  splendid  group  of  men  who  signed  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  acting  like  drunkards 
and  prostitutes";  and  he  attributes  this  lower 
tone  of  morals  to  "the  newcomers  whose  origin 
was  in  heaven  knows  what  gutter." 

Every  period  has  its  Jeremiahs,  who  get  joy  and 
satisfaction  from  pointing  out  how  much  worse  this 
degenerate  age  is  than  the  "good  old  times"  of 
the  past.  To  some  people  the  sunset  of  yesterday 
was  much  more  beautiful  than  the  sunrise  of  to- 
day, and  this  is  especially  true  of  those  who  never 
get  up  to  see  the  sun  rise.  Is  there  not  every  reason 
to  believe  that  coming  generations  will  look  upon 
Roosevelt  and  Wilson  as  this  generation  looks  upon 
the  great  poHtical  leaders  of  former  times?  And 
as  to  the  moral  degeneration  of  those  descendants 
of  the  Signers,  is  it  certain  that  the  young  blades 
of  the  Revolutionary  period  drank  less  alcohol  and 
led  more  chaste  lives  than  those  of  the  present 

*  Means,  loc.  cit. 


152  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

day?  And  does  it  seem  probable  that  these  de- 
scendants of  our  first  famihes  were  led  astray  by 
"gutter-born"  immigrants,  generally  poor,  ignorant 
and  hard-working? 

Such  condemnations  of  the  present,  as  compared 
with  the  past,  are  not  critical  nor  judicious.  They 
are  an  expression  of  emotion  rather  than  reason, 
of  sentiment  rather  than  evidence.  They  are 
characteristic  of  those  who  see  in  history  a  record 
of  deterioration  rather  than  of  progress,  who  place 
the  golden  age  in  the  distant  past  and  engage  in 
ancestor-worship.  But  the  evidences  of  social  and 
moral  progress  are  all  about  us,  and  those  who 
take  the  long  view  of  human  history  will  not  mis- 
take marginal  eddies  for  the  main  stream. 

The  greatest  danger  that  confronts  democracy 
is  not  its  lack  of  specialization,  its  slowness  and  in- 
efficiency, its  levelling  down  to  mediocrity,  or  its 
lack  of  capable  leaders,  but  the  fact  that  unscrupu- 
lous leaders  may  pervert  and  misdirect  the  normal 
social  instincts  of  the  people  in  order  to  accomplish 
selfish  and  partisan  purposes.  During  the  war 
there  was  a  wide-spread  and  highly  organized  culti- 
vation of  emotions  of  hate,  suspicion,  chauvinism. 
In  some  instances  leaders,  newspapers,  and  organi- 
zations did  their  best  to  work  the  people  up  to  a 
frenzy,  little  realizing  or  caring  how  dangerous  this 
process  is.  At  present  a  similar  propaganda  is  being 
waged  against  Japan  and  Mexico,  and  unless  it 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  153 

can  be  met  by  reason  and  common  sense  it  will  in 
time  get  beyond  peaceful  bounds.  It  is  this  appeal 
of  unscrupulous  or  ignorant  leaders  to  primitive 
instincts  and  emotions  rather  than  to  reason  which 
makes  possible  blind  prejudice  and  hatred  between 
classes  and  races  and  nations;  it  is  this  which 
provokes  wars  and  destroys  peace  and  progress. 

There  are,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  but  two  possible 
remedies  for  this  most  serious  condition,  and  these 
are,  first,  that  leaders  shall  always  be  honest  and 
intelligent,  a  condition  which  we  can  probably 
never  hope  to  attain,  or,  second,  that  the  people  as 
a  whole  shall  be  educated  so  as  to  appreciate  the 
difference  between  evidence  and  emotion,  science 
and  sentiment.  Sensationalism,  emotionalism,  irra- 
tionalism  are  the  greatest  dangers  that  threaten 
democracy  and  even  civilization  itself,  for  they  are 
a  direct  return  to  barbarism,  savagery,  and  pre- 
human conditions.  Our  most  dangerous  enemies 
are  within  and  not  without,  and  they  are  the 
forces  of  unreason. 

In  the  midst  of  such  a  revival  of  nationalism 
and  patriotism  as  the  world  has  rarely  experienced, 
we  ought  not  to  forget  that  ''above  all  nations  is 
humanity,"  that  love  of  man  is  more  fundamental 
than  love  of  country;  that  the  only  things  that 
make  patriotism  glorious  are  service  and  sacrifice; 
that  love  of  country  means  more  than  love  of  ''rocks 
and  rills"  and  "templed  hills,"  more  even  than 


154  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

love  of  forms  of  government;  that  it  means  in  fact 
love  of  our  fellow  men,  and  that  patriotism,  social 
harmony,  and  the  spirit  of  humanity  are  grounded 
upon  democratic  fraternity. 


CONCLUSION 

Can  democracy  save  itself  from  the  serious  faults 
and  dangers  which  threaten  it?  Can  the  people, 
as  a  whole,  be  trusted  to  choose  wisely  their  lead- 
ers and  policies?  Can  the  democratic  ideals  of 
liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity  bring  about  that 
rational  co-operation  upon  which  the  further  prog- 
ress of  society  must  depend?  No  man  can  now 
answer  these  questions  with  certainty,  but  at  least 
it  can  be  said  that  no  other  system  of  social  or- 
ganization which  has  yet  been  tried  holds  so  much 
promise  of  success. 

The  rational  powers  of  the  masses  of  mankind 
are  not  very  great,  and  if  the  success  of  democracy 
depended  upon  human  reason  alone  the  prospect 
would  not  be  very  encouraging.  Although  Lin- 
coln's saying  is  true  that  "You  can  fool  all  of  the 
people  some  of  the  time,  and  some  of  the  people 
all  of  the  time,  but  you  cannot  fool  all  of  the  people 
all  of  the  time,"  nevertheless  if  a  majority  of  the 
people  can  be  fooled  most  of  the  time  the  outlook 
for  future  democracy  would  not  be  very  bright, 
if  progress  depended  solely  upon  the  rational 
powers  of  mankind. 

But  the  firm  foundations  upon  which  democracy 
rests  go  deeper  than  the  intellect  and  reason  of 

155 


156  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

man;  they  go  down  to  the  instincts  and  emotions 
and  moral  judgments  which  underlie  all  social 
evolution.  Upon  these  foundations  the  rational 
organization  of  society  stands  as  a  splendid  but 
still  insecure  superstructure. 

The  moral  judgments  of  men  may  be  no  better 
than  their  practical  judgments,  but  judgment 
which  is  founded  upon  much  experience,  even  if 
it  be  based  on  so  low  a  level  as  "trial  and  error," 
is  generally  sound.  Out  of  the  conflict  of  opinions 
and  ideals  of  multitudes  of  persons  in  all  walks  and 
circumstances  of  life  there  comes  at  last  a  compro- 
mise or  adjustment  which  we  call  "common  sense" 
and  which  has  the  pragmatic  quality  of  viabiUty. 

Although  we  cannot  always  trust  the  rational 
processes  of  the  people  as  a  whole,  it  is  the  creed  of 
democracy  that  we  can  trust  their  social  instincts 
and  moral  judgments.  Their  instincts  of  service 
and  sympathy,  and  their  judgments  as  to  right  and 
wrong,  as  to  justice  and  injustice,  are  the  bases  upon 
which  the  ideals  of  liberty,  equality,  and  fraternity 
rest.  These  instincts  and  judgments  are  so  deep- 
seated  and  so  wide-spread,  that  they  form  a  firm 
foundation  for  democracy. 

All  students  of  mankind  have  based  their  hopes 
of  democracy  upon  these  instincts  and  judgments, 
and  no  one  has  expressed  this  thought  more  force- 
fully than  President  Wilson.  In  his  address  at 
Independence  Hall  on  July  4,  1914,  he  said:   "The 


EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY  157 

way  to  success  in  this  great  country,  with  its  fair 
judgments,  is  to  show  that  you  are  not  afraid  of 
anybody  except  God  and  his  final  verdict.  If  I 
did  not  believe  that,  I  would  not  believe  in  democ- 
racy. If  I  did  not  believe  that,  I  would  not  beheve 
that  people  can  govern  themselves.  If  I  did  not 
believe  that  the  moral  judgment  would  be  the  last 
judgment,  the  final  judgment  in  the  minds  of  men 
as  well  as  the  tribunal  of  God,  I  could  not  believe 
in  popular  government.  But  I  do  believe  these 
things,  and,  therefore,  I  earnestly  believe  in  the 
democracy,  not  only  of  America,  but  of  every  awak- 
ened people  that  wishes  and  intends  to  govern 
and  control  its  own  affairs."  And  in  his  address 
to  the  American  Bar  Association  on  October  20, 
1914,  he  said:  "You  cannot  go  any  faster  than  you 
can  advance  the  average  moral  judgments  of  the 
mass;  but  you  can  go  at  least  as  fast  as  that,  and 
you  can  see  to  it  that  you  do  not  lag  behind  the 
average  moral  judgments  of  the  mass.  I  have  in 
my  life  dealt  with  all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men, 
and  I  have  found  that  the  flame  of  moral  judgment 
burned  just  as  bright  in  the  man  of  humble  life 
and  limited  experience  as  in  the  scholar  and  the 
man  of  affairs."  Upon  these  instincts  and  judg- 
ments which  are  deeply  planted  in  the  nature  and 
heart  of  humankind  rest  the  present  successes  and 
the  future  hopes  of  democracy. 
These,  then,  are  some  of  the  reasons  why  we  love 


158  EVOLUTION  AND  DEMOCRACY 

democracy  and  are  willing  to  defend  it  against  the 
pretensions  of  autocracy:  because  it  is  the  most 
natural  and  reasonable,  because  it  is  the  most 
free  and  just,  because  it  is  the  most  humane  and 
peaceful  system  of  government  which  has  yet  been 
tried  by  man. 


Ill 

EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 


THE  NATURE  OF  RELIGION 

Science  contributes  to  society  knowledge  and 
power;  government  establishes  order  and  justice; 
religion  cultivates  faith,  hope,  and  love.  The  ap- 
peal of  science  is  chiefly  to  reason,  of  government  to 
action,  of  religion  to  emotion.  The  instincts  and 
emotions  of  men  are  older  and  more  powerful  than 
their  reason  and  correspondingly  the  appeal  to 
emotion  is  more  potent  than  the  appeal  to  reason. 
Indeed,  reason  itself  can  be  appealed  to  only 
through  intellectual  feeling  or  desire  for  truth. 
The  highest  types  of  religion  appeal  to  the  love 
of  truth,  of  beauty,  and  of  goodness,  that  is,  to  the 
noblest  emotions  in  human  nature, 

Ryland  says:  ''Thoughtful  people  get  too  much 
in  the  habit  of  thinking  that  intellect  is  every- 
thing. Yet  the  world  is  governed  not  by  thought 
but  by  emotion."  And  on  this  subject  Ribot,  the 
French  psychologist,  says:  "What  is  fundamental 
in  character  is  the  instincts,  impulses,  desires, 
feelings,  all  these  and  nothing  else."  "Men  are 
not  governed  by  abstract  principles,"  said  LesHe 
Stephen,  "but  by  passions  and  emotions."  Her- 
bert Spencer  said,  "Mind  is  not  wholly,  or  even 
mainly  intelligence;   it  consists  largely  and  in  one 

i6i 


i62  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

sense  entirely  of  feelings";  and  August  Comte  said: 
"Affections,  propensities,  passions  are  the  great 
springs  of  human  Hfe." 

This  is  the  great  truth  which  religion  has  ever 
emphasized:  out  of  the  heart,  that  is,  the  emotions, 
are  the  issues  of  life  (Prov.  4: 20) ;  As  a  man  thinketh 
in  his  heart,  so  is  he  (Prov.  23:7).  This  moral 
and  emotional  part  of  man's  nature,  as  contrasted 
with  his  mind  or  intellect,  is  what  is  usually  called 
the  soul. 

In  general  instincts  and  feehngs  are  as  perfect  in 
the  higher  orders  of  animals  as  in  man;  emotions 
and  desires  have  an  intellectual  component  and 
consequently  are  limited  to  the  highest  animals 
and  are  most  highly  developed  in  man;  reason 
alone,  that  is,  the  power  of  generalization  and,  ab- 
stract thought,  is  wholly  limited  to  man. 

A.    Cosmic  Mysteries 

Reason  and  consciousness  have  disclosed  to  man 
a  vast  and  mysterious  universe,  in  which  there  are 
stupendous  forces  and  processes  which  he  but  dimly 
apprehends  and  the  meaning  and  purpose  of  which 
he  cannot  understand.  In  this  vast  universe  in- 
dividual men,  the  whole  human  race,  the  earth 
and  solar  system  are  but  atoms  and  motes  float- 
ing in  infinite  space.  Generations,  ages,  eras  come 
and  go;  living,  feeling  creatures  rejoicing  in  their 
strength  and  fond  of  life  swarm  over  the  earth 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  163 

and  go  down  to  inevitable  death  and  extinction, 
leaving  only  their  skeletons  as  memorials  of  them; 
human  beings,  fearfully  and  wonderfully  made, 
gifted  with  intelligence  and  reason,  with  the  keen- 
est love  of  life,  fear  of  death,  and  highest  hopes 
and  aspirations,  appear  by  millions,  rejoice  and 
struggle  and  suffer  for  a  brief  period  and  then  die 
and  leave  only  their  bones  and  implements  behind. 
The  inexorable  system  of  nature  seems  to  move  on 
like  a  colossal  Juggernaut,  unheeding  the  victims 
that  lie  in  its  path.  Complex  forms  of  society — 
tribes  and  states  and  great  empires — arise,  flourish 
for  a  period,  and  then  decay  and  disappear,  leaving 
only  vast  monuments  as  evidences  of  their  great- 
ness and  pride  and  power. 

In  the  midst  of  this  incomprehensible  universe, 
in  the  presence  of  these  illimitable  powers  and 
inexorable  laws  of  nature,  in  the  onrush  of  this 
universal  holocaust  puny  man  stands  bewildered 
and  wonders  what  it  all  means. 

B.    The  Problem  of  Evil 

Reason  and  consciousness  have  also  revealed  to 
man  alone  a  vast  problem  of  evil.  Animals  are 
not  tortured  with  mental  and  moral  suffering  and 
they  live  chiefly  in  the  present  without  fear  as 
to  the  future  or  remorse  for  the  past.  Man  on 
the  other  hand  has  eaten  of  the  fruit  of  the  tree 
of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil.     He  suffers 


1 64  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

not  merely  from  physical  pain  but  much  more 
from  mental  and  moral  anguish.  Through  his 
memory,  imagination,  and  reason  he  lives  not  mere- 
ly in  the  present,  but  also  in  the  past  and  future. 
And  although  this  larger  life  increases  his  joys  it 
multiplies  his  woes.  Burns  has  immortalized  this 
difference  between  animals  and  men  in  his  poem 
''To  a  Mouse": 

"Still  thou  art  blest,  compared  wi'  me! 
The  present  only  toucheth  thee: 
But,  och !  I  backward  cast  my  e'e 

On  prospects  drear ! 
And  forward,  though  I  canna  see, 

I  guess  and  fear." 

Who  will  say  that  those  greatest  and  most  dis- 
tinctive of  human  traits,  reason  and  consciousness, 
have  not  been  purchased  at  a  fearful  price?  They 
have  revealed  a  world  of  evil  as  well  as  of  good — 
a  world  of  struggle  and  failure,  of  suffering  and 
sorrow,  of  injustice  and  selfishness,  of  disappoint- 
ment and  despair — a  world  of  war  and  pesti- 
lence and  death;  a  world  in  which  the  innocent 
suffer  as  well  as  the  guilty,  in  which  unborn  babes 
suffer  for  the  sins  of  their  fathers,  in  which  evil  is 
often  rewarded  and  good  punished;  a  world  in 
which  nature  is  ''Red  in  tooth  and  claw  with  ra- 
vine," in  which  diseases  and  parasites  of  the  most 
devihsh  ingenuity  prey  upon  all  hving  things,  in 
which  all  higher  animals  are  born  in  pain,  brought 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  165 

up  with  measureless  care  and  trouble,  live  a  life 
in  which  struggle  and  suffering  are  mingled  with 
brief  satisfactions  and  joys,  and  without  a  single 
exception  go  on  to  inevitable  decay  and  death. 

And  as  if  these  natural  and  unavoidable  evils 
were  not  enough,  man  has  taken  what  seems  to  be 
an  almost  infernal  delight  in  perpetrating  and 
imagining  others.  He  has  outdone  the  brutes  in 
brutality  and  the  beasts  in  bestiality.  He  has  in- 
vented more  cruel  tortures  and  has  imagined  worse 
horrors  than  any  known  in  nature.  In  his  igno- 
rance and  superstition  he  has  peopled  the  world 
with  demons,  evil  spirits,  and  witches,  and  he  has 
extended  these  imaginary  horrors  to  a  future  life 
of  eternal  torture. 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  sensitive  souls  who  have 
brooded  over  these  horrors  have  cried  out  against 
them,  that  they  have  found  this  world  of  evil 
intolerable  and  have  been  compelled  to  seek  some 
way  of  relief? 

C.    The  Inner  Conflict 

Furthermore,  we  are  aware  of  the  fact  that 
disharmony  and  evil  are  not  only  around  us  but 
in  us.  We  are  urged  to  different  courses  by  con- 
flicting desires.  Hate  battles  with  love,  selfishness 
with  altruism,  passion  with  reason.  The  moral 
and  social  codes  forbid  many  things  which  we  de- 
sire and  prescribe  things  we  would  avoid. 


1 66  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

"Huxley  held  that  the  spirit  of  ethics  was  opposed  to  the 
spirit  of  evolution.  Metchnikoff  finds  these  disharmonies 
due  to  the  survival  of  bestial  instincts  in  man.  Galton 
finds  the  sense  of  sin  to  be  due  to  the  fact  that  the  develop- 
ment of  our  inherited  nature  has  not  kept  pace  with  the 
development  of  our  moral  civilization.  Our  psychical,  so- 
cial, and  moral  environment  has  come  down  to  us  from  the 
past  with  ever-increasing  increments,  every  age  standing 
on  the  shoulders  of  the  preceding  one.  The  aspirations, 
impulses,  responsibilities  of  modern  life  have  become  enor- 
mous and  our  inherited  natures  and  abilities  have  not  essen- 
tially improved.  Social  heredity  has  outrun  germinal  hered- 
ity and  the  intellectual,  social,  and  moral  responsibilities  of 
our  times  are  too  great  for  many  men.  Civilization  is  a 
strenuous  affair,  with  impulses  and  compulsions  which  are 
difiicult  for  the  primitive  man  to  fulfil,  and  many  of  us  are 
hereditarily  primitive  men.  The  frequent  result  is  dishar- 
mony, poor  adjustment,  a  struggle  between  primitive  in- 
stincts and  high  ideals  with  a  resulting  sense  of  discourage- 
ment and  defeat,  which  often  ends  in  abnormal  states  of 
mind.  The  prevalence  of  crime,  alcoholism,  depravity,  and 
insanity  is  an  ever-increasing  protest  and  menace  of  weak 
men  against  high  civilization."  * 

In  memorable  words  Paul  describes  the  "law  in 
my  members  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind 
and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin 
which  is  in  my  members,"  and  he  cries  out:  ''Oh, 
wretched  man  that  I  am !  Who  shall  deliver  me 
from  this  body  of  death?"    (Romans  7:23,  24.) 

D.    The  Function  of  Religion 

All  men  everywhere  have  desired  to  be  in  har- 
mony with  the  superhuman  powers  and  processes 

*  Conklin.    "Heredity  and  Environment,"  1920,  pp.  242-243. 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  167 

which  surround  them;  they  have  tried  to  avoid 
pain  and  evil  and  to  find  happiness;  they  have 
sought  inner  peace  in  place  of  conflict.  In  addi- 
tion to  this,  intelligent  men  have  sought  for  a 
rational  explanation  of  these  great  mysteries  and 
problems  which  would  satisfy  their  reason,  and 
harmonize  their  emotions ;  which  would  make  them 
feel  at  one  with  cosmic  processes,  with  society, 
and  with  themselves.  They  have  sought,  in  short, 
to  adjust  or  adapt  themselves  to  their  environment 
whether  it  be  the  personal  environment,  inner  or 
outer,  or  the  cosmos. 

The  most  intelligent  types  of  men  may  find 
relief  from  "Fightings  within  and  fears  without," 
in  science  or  philosophy,  but  the  great  mass  of 
mankind  in  all  ages  and  countries  have  found  re- 
lief in  religion.  Religion  enables  thoughtful  and 
sensitive  persons  to  face  evil,  fears,  suffering,  and 
death  with  hope  and  courage.  It  covers  the  hide- 
ous aspects  of  nature  with  the  mantle  of  divine 
love  and  purpose.  It  makes  life  tolerable  to  those 
who  would  find  it  otherwise  intolerable.  It  helps 
to  control  the  antisocial  and  brutish  instincts  of 
men  and  it  cultivates  faith,  hope,  and  love.  Its 
great  hold  on  the  race  is  due  to  the  fact  that  it 
ministers  in  the  highest  sense  to  human  comfort 
and  happiness. 

The  scientist  worships  truth,  the  artist  beauty, 
and  every  moral  person  goodness.     Religion  com- 


1 68  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

bines  the  worship  of  the  true,  the  beautiful,  and 
the  good.  The  person  who  loves  these  is  rehgious, 
it  matters  not  what  his  professed  creed  may  be. 
The  irreligious  man  is  the  one  who  does  not  love 
the  true,  the  beautiful,  and  the  good — even  though 
he  may  profess  a  noble  faith  and  may  breathe  out 
threatenings  and  slaughter  against  those  who  differ 
from  him. 

The  great  power  of  religion  in  every  stage  of 
human  history  bears  witness  to  the  fact  that  life 
is  not  merely  thinking  and  doing,  but  feeHng  also, 
and  that  religion  answers  to  a  real  human  need. 
We  shall  never  outgrow  our  need  of  religion,  as  we 
shall  never  outgrow  our  need  of  government  and 
science,  though  we  have  outgrown  many  faiths  and 
creeds  in  science  and  government,  as  well  as  in 
religion,  and  shall  probably  outgrow  many  more. 


II 

THE   EVOLUTION  OF  RELIGION 

As  the  study  of  comparative  anatomy  and  embry- 
ology must  inevitably  have  led  to  the  doctrine  of 
organic  evolution,  so  the  study  of  comparative 
religions  must  necessarily  have  led  to  a  recognition 
of  the  fact  of  religious  evolution.  In  this  country 
at  least,  the  wide  recognition  of  the  fact  that  there 
is  much  in  common  and  much  of  value  in  all  re- 
ligions dates  from  the  World's  Parliament  of  Re- 
ligions in  1893.  Those  who  were  then  and  there 
stimulated  to  study  other  religions  came  to  see 
that  many  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity 
go  back  to  remote  sources. 

It   is  not  my  purpose   here  to  discuss  in  any 

detail  the  evolution  of  religion.     This  is  a  subject 

which  has  been  dealt  with  by  some  of  the  greatest 

students  of  world  religions  who  have  shown  that 

religion,  no  less  than  social  organization  and  human 

intelligence,  has  undergone  an  evolution  from  the 

primitive  behefs  and  practices  of  savage  tribes  to 

the   lofty    teachings    and   ideals    of    Christianity. 

This  evolution  is  nowhere  better  illustrated  than 

in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  where  the  record 

of  the  religious  development  of  the  Jews  is  traced 

from   the  primitive  faith  and   customs  of  semi- 

169 


lyo  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

barbarous  tribes  to  the  highest  ideals  of  religion 
and  morahty  that  the  world  has  ever  known. 

Buckle  thought  that  intellect  is  the  great  mov- 
ing force  of  history  and  that  emotions  are  static. 
Certain  it  is  that  emotions  and  instincts  are  far 
more  static  than  knowledge,  just  as  physical  in- 
heritance and  evolution  are  more  static  than  so- 
cial inheritance  and  evolution.  When  one  consid- 
ers the  utter  anachronism  presented  by  the  sur- 
vival of  primitive  or  even  savage  ideals  of  reli- 
gion, not  only  in  an  age  of  general  enlightenment 
but  even  in  persons  of  high  intelligence  and  culture, 
it  is  only  too  easy  to  believe  with  Buckle  that  emo- 
tions and  religion  are  static.  When  one  reflects 
on  the  fact  that  for  nineteen  centuries  so  great  a 
part  of  the  world  that  professes  to  be  Christian 
has  remained  heathen  at  heart  and  that  to-day  the 
teachings  of  Jesus  are  generally  regarded  by  his 
so-called  followers  as  too  lofty  to  be  practical  we 
may  well  wonder  whether  mankind  is  making  any 
progress  in  reUgion.  Erasmus  gave  the  ignorant, 
emotional  religion  of  his  day  only  fifty  years  before 
it  should  become  extinct;  Voltaire  thought  that 
for  all  intelligent  persons  the  old  religion  was  al- 
ready extinct;  but  in  spite  of  notable  advances  in 
education,  general  information,  and  social  organi- 
zation the  "old-time  religion"  of  emotion  as  op- 
posed to  reason,  of  dogma  rather  than  of  works, 
still  persists. 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  171 

But  emotions  and  religions,  like  physical  organi- 
zation and  instincts,  do  undergo  slow  changes  in 
the  course  of  centuries.  The  long  view  shows  that 
here  also  there  has  been  evolution  and  progress. 
If  there  has  been  an  evolution  of  intellect  and  of 
society,  it  follows  necessarily  that  there  has  been 
evolution  in  man's  conception  of  religion,  for  even 
if  the  doctrines  and  commands  of  all  religions  were 
supernaturally  revealed,  those  revelations  must 
have  been  adjusted  to  the  stage  of  evolution  to 
which  men  had  arrived.  In  his  address  on  Mars' 
Hill  in  Athens,  Paul  clearly  outHned  this  develop- 
ment of  religion  from  fetichism  and  idolatry  to 
the  worship  of  "Him  in  whom  we  live  and  move 
and  have  our  being."    (Acts  17:22-31.) 

Primitive  religions  are  almost  entirely  emotional 
and  are  based  largely  upon  fear.  Goethe  described 
primitive  religion  as  "fear  without  reverence." 
In  the  lowest  grades  of  savagery  the  object  of 
worship  is  some  external  thing.  Family  or  tribal 
gods  are  identified  with  animate  or  inanimate 
objects  which  are  the  possession  of  the  tribe. 
These  fetiches  are  cherished  and  treated  with  cere- 
monies in  order  to  bring  good  luck.  In  a  slightly 
more  advanced  state  of  savagery  the  external  ob- 
ject is  the  symbol  of  the  god  rather  than  the  god 
himself;  it  is  the  "idol,"  which  means  the  thing 
seen,  and  stands  for  the  unseen  god. 

The  savage  worships  this  idol  or  the  god  sym- 


172  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

bolized  by  it  and  makes  sacrifices  to  it  in  order  to 
propitiate  it  and  to  get  it  to  fight  for  him  and  to 
do  his  will.  Even  in  modern  religions  there  is  a 
large  element  of  fetichism,  as  witness  the  adoration 
of  wax  figures,  bones  of  saints,  sacred  relics,  and 
the  like.  The  fact  is  that  many  members  of  civi- 
lized society  are,  intellectually  and  morally,  still 
savages  and  their  religion  is  still  fetichism.  Caird* 
says:  "The  spirit  of  fetichism  is  the  dark  shadow 
which  accompanies  religion  in  every  stage,  from 
the  savage  who  makes  presents  to  the  medicine- 
man of  his  tribe  up  to  the  Christian  who  prays, 
not  that  God's  will  may  be  done,  but  that  God 
may  be  got  to  do  his  will." 

Family  and  tribal  gods  were  beheved  to  be  the 
ancestors  of  the  tribe,  even  though  they  were 
animals  or  inanimate  objects,  and  the  tribe  was 
frequently  named  from  its  tutelary  deity  and  was 
supposed  to  partake  of  his  nature.  These  deities 
fought  and  wrought  for  the  good  of  their  tribes 
and  against  all  enemies.  Survivals  of  such  beliefs 
may  sometimes  be  found  even  in  modern  nations, 
as,  for  example,  in  the  recent  war-time  invocations 
to  "Our  good  old  German  God." 

A  higher  type  of  rehgion  rising  above  belief  in 
tribal  gods  is  found  in  the  worship  of  the  heavenly 
bodies  and  of  the  elemental  powers  of  earth  and 

*  Caird,  Edw.  "The  Evolution  of  Religion,"  Glasgow,  1893,  vol. 
I,  p.  225. 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  173 

sky  and  sea.  This  is  one  of  the  earliest  types  of 
religion  of  civihzed  and  semi-civihzed  nations — of 
Egypt,  Assyria,  Greece,  India,  Persia,  China,  Peru, 
and  Mexico.  Whereas  the  idea  of  tribal  gods 
led  to  belief  in  multitudes  of  minor  deities,  the 
worship  of  nature,  and  especially  of  the  heavens, 
tended  to  reduce  the  number  of  these  deities. 
"The  physical  universalism  of  the  heavens  .  .  . 
is  thus  the  first  form  in  which  the  idea  of  a  universal 
God,  a  God  who  is  above,  though  not  as  yet  exclu- 
sive of  all  others,  presents  itself  to  the  spirit  of 
man.  .  .  .  The  physical  universality  of  the  heav- 
ens was  the  stepping-stone  upon  which  the  religious 
mind  of  India  rose  to  the  abstract  universality  of 
thought,  the  Absolute  Being  in  which  everything 
else  is  lost.  This  pantheism  is  the  final  outcome  of 
polytheism,  the  fatal  gulf  that  must  ultimately 
swallow  up  all  merely  objective  religions."  * 

A  still  more  advanced  type  of  religion  is  found 
in  anthropomorphism  or  homotheism,  in  which  the 
object  of  worship  is  a  greater  and  more  perfect 
man.  This  is  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  mind 
and  soul  of  man  are  the  highest  and  most  worthy 
objects  in  nature,  that  they  far  surpass  in  com- 
plexity and  significance  the  most  stupendous  phe- 
nomena of  the  material  world.  There  is  thus  a 
reason  for  the  fact  that  in  endeavoring  to  endow 
his  gods  with   the  highest  and  noblest  qualities 

*  Caird,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  255-258. 


174  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

man  should  have  made  them  in  his  own  image. 
Owing  to  the  difficulty  of  imagining  the  combina- 
tion of  the  superlative  manifestations  of  all  human 
qualities  in  one  object  of  worship,  these  quaUties 
were  distributed  among  many  gods,  and  thus  we 
get  the  numerous  anthropomorphic  gods  of  Egypt, 
Assyria,  Greece,  and  Rome. 

Finally  the  external  objects  of  worship,  whether 
fetiches,  idols,  forces  of  nature,  or  gods  in  human 
form,  are  abandoned  for  a  subjective  religion  of 
thought.  The  material  object  is  sublimated  and 
etherealized;  the  forces  of  nature  and  the  aspira- 
tions of  man  are  combined  in  a  universal  and 
eternal  spirit,  all-powerful,  all-wise,  and  all-good. 
And  yet  this  sublimated  idea  of  God  combines  the 
best  elements  of  earlier  and  more  primitive  re- 
ligions, for  religious  systems,  like  scientific  or  gov- 
ernmental ones,  evolve  by  absorbing,  recombining, 
and  elaborating  earlier  forms  and  ideas. 

An  element  of  ethics  or  morality  is  found  in  all 
religions,  even  the  most  primitive,  but  it  becomes 
a  leading  principle  in  only  the  most  advanced  types 
of  religion.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  ethics  is 
entirely  lacking  in  primitive  religions  and  yet  this 
is  not  strictly  true,  for  although  the  family  or  tribal 
god  may  be  a  demon  to  other  tribes,  he  is  the  pa- 
tron and  protector  of  his  own  particular  tribe. 
There  is  ethics  in  such  a  religion,  but  it  is  a  small 
and  narrow  kind  of  ethics,  and  only  in  the  course 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  175 

of  long  evolution  has  it  grown  to  include  other 
tribes  and  races  and  nations;  and  correspondingly 
it  was  only  in  the  course  of  long  development  that 
the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  came  to  be 
regarded  as  the  Lord  of  all  the  earth  and  the  Father 
of  all  mankind.  "Religion,"  said  Matthew  Arnold, 
"if  we  follow  the  intention  of  human  thought  and 
human  language  in  the  use  of  the  word,  is  ethics 
heightened,  enkindled,  Ut  up  by  feeHng;  the  pas- 
sage from  morality  to  rehgion  is  made  when  to 
morality  is  applied  emotion."  The  evolutionary 
view  of  rehgion  would  reverse  the  process  here  de- 
scribed and  teach  that  to  the  emotions  of  primitive 
rehgion  there  was  in  course  of  time  added  ethics 
and  morahty. 

The  fact  of  the  evolution  of  rehgion  is  held  by 
some  to  destroy  its  value  and  significance,  but  one 
might  as  well  hold  that  the  development  of  the 
individual  destroys  the  value  of  personality  or 
that  the  evolution  of  man  destroys  his  unique 
superiority  over  all  other  creatures.  The  signifi- 
cant fact  with  regard  to  the  race,  personality,  or 
religion  is  not  what  they  begin  with  but  what  they 
lead  to  and  what  they  end  with.  All  forms  of  de- 
velopment are  marvellous,  miraculous  if  you  please, 
but  they  are  none  the  less  facts.  From  the  minute 
and  relatively  simple  egg  cell  develops  the  com- 
plex body,  the  instincts,  and  the  mind  of  man; 
from  primitive  protoplasm  has  developed  all  the 


176  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

multitudes  of  living  things  which  inhabit  the  globe, 
including  man,  the  paragon  of  animals,  the  climax  of 
evolution ;  from  the  earliest  forms  of  society,  namely 
the  family  and  tribe,  have  developed  all  the  com- 
plexities of  modern  civilization;  from  the  primi- 
tive faith  of  the  child  or  the  savage  has  developed 
the  highest  type  of  religion  and  ethics  that  the 
world  has  ever  known.  Such  development  is  a  fact 
which  cannot  be  successfully  denied;  but  though 
we  may  recognize  its  steps  and  stages,  we  cannot 
fully  explain  its  causes.  The  mystery  of  mysteries 
is  how  the  egg  cell  or  the  original  protoplasm 
or  savage  society  or  primitive  religion  came  to 
contain  all  the  marvellous  potencies  of  develop- 
ment which  they  possess. 

The  various  stages  and  phases  of  religion  repre- 
sent different  attitudes  of  mind  toward  the  funda- 
mental problems  of  existence,  such  as  the  origin 
and  government  of  the  universe,  the  constitution 
and  order  of  nature,  the  origin  and  character  of  man 
and  of  society,  and  especially  the  mysteries  of  hu- 
man life  and  death,  of  good  and  evil,  of  instincts, 
emotions,  intelligence,  and  consciousness,  as  well 
as  the  aspirations  and  ideals  of  individuals  and  of 
society.  The  type  of  religion  which  one  holds  is 
the  reflection  of  his  beliefs  regarding  these  funda- 
mental things.  Caird*  says,  "A  man's  religion  is 
the  expression  of  his  ultimate  attitude  to  the  uni- 

*  Caird,  loc.  cit.,  p.  30. 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  177 

verse,  the  summed-up  meaning  and  purport  of  his 
whole  consciousness  of  things.  ...  In  short  it  is 
the  highest  form  of  his  consciousness  of  himself  in 
his  relation  to  all  other  things  and  beings;  and  if 
we  want  a  brief  abstract  and  epitome  of  the  man, 
we  must  seek  for  it  here  or  nowhere." 

In  this  sense  religion  is  a  personal  matter;  every 
man  has  his  own  religion,  however  irreligious  it 
may  seem  to  those  whose  attitude  to  the  universe 
is  different  from  his  own.  In  this  broadest  sense 
rehgion  includes  a  man's  entire  personality,  his 
intellect,  emotions,  will;  his  thoughts,  aspirations, 
activities. 

But  in  religion,  as  in  everything  else,  mankind 
has  desired  uniformity.  A  purely  personal  rehgion 
may  be  good  enough  theoretically,  but  practically 
it  fails  to  accomphsh  much  of  a  lasting  nature  for 
human  society.  Because  of  the  greater  power  and 
permanency  of  society,  as  contrasted  with  the  indi- 
vidual, all  types  of  religions  have  estabhshed  or- 
ganizations, such  as  churches,  schools,  charitable 
institutions,  even  governments;  and  they  have 
developed  bodies  of  behef  such  as  doctrines,  dog- 
mas, and  creeds. 


Ill 

THE   CONFLICT  BETWEEN  THEOLOGY 
AND   SCIENCE 

Between  religion  and  science  there  can  be,  no 
other  conflict  than  such  as  may  arise  between 
emotion  and  reason,  between  faith  and  knowledge. 
But  between  the  science  which  deals  with  reh- 
gion,  namely  theology,  and  the  sciences  which  deal 
with  various  aspects  of  nature,  that  is,  the  natural 
sciences,  there  have  been  many  conflicts.  When 
one  considers  all  types  of  religion  and  theology, 
it  is  evident  that  there  have  been  many  conflicts 
not  only  between  these  religious  systems  and  sci- 
ence, but  also  between  them  and  the  highest  types 
of  art  and  morality.  However,  we  are  here  con- 
cerned primarily  with  the  conflicts  between  natu- 
ral science,  and  especially  biological  science,  and 
Christian  theology. 

In  the  interests  of  uniformity  of  belief  religious 
bodies  have  prescribed  many  intellectual,  scien- 
tific, and  philosophic  systems  and  have  claimed  for 
them  divine  sanction  and  revelation,  whereas  all 
other  knowledge  might  grow  from  more  to  more, 
such  revealed  knowledge  was  held  to  be  perfect 
from  the  first,  and  where  it  came  into  conflict  with 

science,  so  much  the  worse  for  science. 

178 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  179 

But  so  far  as  scientific  doctrines  are  concerned 
no  sane  person  now  attempts  to  prove  or  disprove 
them  by  appealing  to  theology  or  the  Scriptures; 
they  stand  or  fall  on  scientific  evidence  only. 
Religious  philosophy,  on  the  other  hand,  is  based 
chiefly  on  human  needs  and  desires  and  here  even 
more  than  elsewhere  the  tendency  is  to  believe 
that  which  one  desires  to  believe,  and  to  adopt  a 
faith  which  will  satisfy  the  emotions  but  which  may 
not  satisfy  the  reason.  And  yet  religious  philosophy 
to  be  of  any  comfort  or  value  must  be  sincerely 
believed.  It  must  satisfy  the  reason  as  well  as  the 
emotions,  and  to  this  extent  it  must  be  consistent 
with  one's  knowledge  of  nature  and  of  man.  Con- 
sequently religious  beliefs  and  doctrines  cannot 
stand  still  when  all  other  knowledge  is  advancing. 
The  faith  of  childhood  or  of  the  childhood  age  of 
the  race  will  not  satisfy  more  mature  stages  of 
development,  and  it  would  be  strange  if  the  the- 
ology of  a  pre-scientific  age  did  not  now  and  again 
clash  with  advancing  knowledge. 

Almost  all  general  ideas  are  expressed  in  terms 
of  sense  impressions;  they  are  material  pictures 
or  images  which  in  the  course  of  time  have  come  to 
stand  for,  or  to  symbolize,  some  more  immaterial 
concept.  This  is  true  of  all  our  thinking,  but  it 
is  especially  true  in  the  field  of  religion.  Religious 
thinking,  expression,  and  instruction  is  almost  en- 
tirely in  the  form  of  symbols.     Much  of  our  Ian- 


i8o  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

guage  on  this  subject  is  symbolic,  as,  for  example, 
"spirit"  meaning  breath  or  wind,  "heaven"  mean- 
ing that  which  is  elevated,  etc.,  and  practically- 
all  of  the  forms,  ceremonies,  and  ordinances  of 
religion  are  symbols.  The  presentation  of  spiritual 
thoughts  to  immature  minds  must  be  in  the  form 
of  sensory  objects,  and  especially  of  visual  images. 
Hence  God,  the  spirit  of  truth  and  beauty  and 
goodness,  becomes  the  "Good  Man,"  the  general 
spirit  of  evil  becomes  the  "Bad  Man,"  heaven 
becomes  the  Celestial  City  with  streets  of  gold  and 
gates  of  pearl,  etc.  To  insist  that  these  and  many 
other  religious  symbols,  metaphors,  or  allegories 
shall  be  accepted  by  mature  minds  as  real,  material 
entities  rather  than  as  symbols  is  like  requiring 
grown-up  people  to  "believe  in  Santa  Claus"  as  a 
real,  physical  personality  rather  than  as  a  symbol 
of  the  spirit  of  Christmas — the  spirit  of  good-will 
and  service  and  love.  The  symbolism  of  religion 
is  wonderfully  rich  and  deep,  and  it  is  capable  of 
appealing  to  all  grades  of  intelligence  and  experi- 
ence from  the  child  to  the  sage.  On  the  other  hand, 
a  literal  interpretation  of  these  symbols  is  not  only 
impossible  for  mature  minds  but  it  destroys  their 
deeper  meaning.  "The  letter  killeth,  the  spirit 
maketh  ahve."  More  than  anything  else,  it  is 
extreme  literalism  in  the  interpretation  of  religious 
symbols  which  has  caused  the  conflict  between 
science  and  rehgion. 


EVOLUTION  AND   RELIGION  i8i 

It  is  not  possible  to  quiet  this  conflict  by  ''taking 
the  reason  captive,"  as  has  sometimes  been  advised, 
nor  is  it  possible  to  save  an  outgrown  theology 
by  stopping  the  advance  of  science  or  by  discredit- 
ing its  conclusions.  It  is  not  possible  to  satisfy 
mature  minds  with  a  primitive  religion  suited  only 
to  children,  and  the  attempt  to  do  this  can  only 
result  in  forcing  thoughtful  persons  into  an  atti- 
tude of  hostility  to  religion.  The  modern  world 
has  outgrown  the  primitive  religions  of  tribal 
gods  whether  those  of  the  Philistines  or  the  Israel- 
ites; it  has  outgrown  the  idea  of  national  gods 
whether  of  Egypt,  Greece,  Rome,  Germany,  or 
America;  it  has  outgrown  the  cosmogonies  of  the 
Babylonians  and  the  science  of  the  earliest  stages 
of  civilization,  and  it  is  just  as  impossible  to  force 
the  modern  mind  back  into  these  primitive  beliefs 
as  it  would  be  to  force  the  mature  man  back  into 
the  egg  from  which  he  developed. 

Much  harm  has  come  to  religion  through  pious 
attempts  to  oppose  the  advance  of  science  by 
unscientific  methods.  Through  many  dark  ages 
the  Christian  church  served  as  the  intellectual 
as  well  as  the  spiritual  guide  of  men  and  it  is  not 
surprising  that  with  the  dawn  of  a  brighter  era 
it  should  still  have  striven  by  its  old  methods  to 
maintain  its  intellectual  leadership;  but  the  time 
has  forever  passed  when  scientific  questions  can  be 
settled  by  an  appeal  to  theology.     The  world  no 


1 82  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

longer  looks  to  the  church,  as  it  once  did,  for 
intellectual  leadership.  The  time  was  when  not 
only  the  pulpit  but  also  the  great  seats  of  learning 
were  the  schools  of  the  church.  To-day  we  hear 
much  of  the  loss  of  influence  on  the  part  of  the 
pulpit  and  it  is  notorious  that  in  the  great  universi- 
ties the  church  has  lost  control.  The  remedy  for 
this  condition  is  not  to  be  found  in  increased  zeal 
but  in  increased  wisdom.  Why  should  the  church 
claim  for  itself  authority  in  matters  of  science? 
If  false  doctrines  are  taught  by  science,  and  no 
doubt  many  are,  science  will  furnish  the  cure. 
The  only  remedy  will  be  found  in  more  exact  meth- 
ods of  inquiry,  in  more  laborious  investigations; 
it  can  never  come  through  resolutions  of  church 
councils,  general  assemblies,  or  even  papal  anathe- 
mas. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  church  to  relate  itself  to 
present-day  problems,  to  present-day  methods,  and 
knowledge,  but  it  is  not  its  duty  to  become  spon- 
sor for  scientific  doctrines.  It  is  as  certainly  a 
mistake  for  the  church  to  stake  everything  upon 
the  latest  doctrine  of  science  as  upon  the  oldest — 
though  not  so  fatal  a  mistake.  The  advice  of 
Gamaliel  is  still  good  advice:  ''Refrain  from  these 
men  and  let  them  alone:  for  if  this  counsel  or  this 
work  be  of  men,  it  will  come  to  naught:  but  if  it 
be  of  God  ye  cannot  overthrow  it:  lest  haply 
ye  be  found  to  fight  against  God."    The  logic  of 


EVOLUTION  AND   RELIGION  183 

events  will  try  all  doctrines;  natural  selection  will 
ultimately  weed  out  the  unfit  in  science  and  re- 
ligion, as  well  as  in  the  physical,  intellectual,  and 
social  worlds. 

It  is  the  truth  after  all  which  all  sincere  men 
desire.  God  cannot  be  concerned  that  men  should 
believe  anything  which  will  not  bear  the  most 
searching  investigation,  and  why  should  those  who 
claim  to  be  his  ambassadors  be  fearful  of  this  test? 
The  truth  is  more  to  be  desired  than  any  form  of 
doctrine  or  dogma.  In  all  science  the  great  article 
of  faith  is  this,  "Truth  is  mighty  and  will  prevail." 
We  may  be  sure  of  the  ultimate  triumph  of  the 
truth,  whatever  may  become  of  your  doctrine  or 
mine;  and  further  we  may  rest  assured  that  there 
is  no  short  cut  to  truth,  no  royal  road,  no  way  to 
save  men  from  temporary  error.  ''Prove  all  things, 
hold  fast  that  which  is  good"  is  the  only  rule. 
This  being  so,  the  one  fatal  thing  is  not  error  but 
bigotry,  not  smallness  of  knowledge  but  small- 
ness  of  will  and  purpose  and  soul,  not  disbelief  in 
doctrine  but  distrust  of  truth  and  reason  and  na- 
ture. In  short  the  one  thing  to  be  desired  by 
church  and  state,  by  society  and  individuals  is 
not  perfect  truth  nor  a  panacea  for  all  human  ills 
but  openmindedness,  sincerity,  and  sanity. 

Strictly  speaking,  science  and  religion  deal  with 
different  subjects.  The  substance  and  purpose  of 
science  is  knowledge;    of  religion,  faith  and  con- 


1 84  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

duct ;  the  organ  of  science  is  primarily  the  intellect, 
of  religion  the  emotions  and  the  will;  the  goal  of 
science  is  mechanism,  of  religion  spirit.  And  yet 
as  man  himself  is  a  unity  and  cannot  in  reality  be 
divided  into  body,  mind,  and  soul,  so  science  and 
rehgion  are,  or  should  be,  expressions  of  this  unity 
acting  in  co-operation  and  not  in  antagonism: 

"Let  knowledge  grow  from  more  to  more, 
But  more  of  reverence  in  us  dwell, 
That  mind  and  soul  according  well, 

May  make  one  music  as  before, 

But  vaster." 


IV 

NATURE  AND  THE  SUPERNATURAL 

The  centre  of  the  conflict  between  science  and 
theology  is  naturalism  vs.  supernaturalism.  Al- 
most every  religion  claims  to  have  had  a  super- 
natural origin,  to  have  been  made  known  to  men 
by  supernatural  revelation,  to  be  attested  by  super- 
natural miracles,  to  influence  the  lives  of  men  in  a 
supernatural  manner  and  to  lead  to  supernatural 
rewards  or  punishments  in  a  future  supernatural 
life.  On  the  other  hand,  science  has  found  that  so 
many  things  which  were  once  regarded  as  super- 
natural are  due  to  natural  causes  that  it  assumes 
that  all  phenomena  will  ultimately  be  found  to  be 
natural,  either  by  showing  that  they  can  be  ex- 
plained by  laws  or  principles  already  known  or  by 
other  laws  at  present  unknown  and  perhaps  un- 
suspected. 

Professor  W.  K.  Brooks  once  said,  "The  idea  of 
the  supernatural  is  due  to  a  misunderstanding;  na- 
ture is  everything  that  is."*  It  is  worth  our  while 
to  consider  briefly  what  is  meant  by  these  terms,  for 
the  conflict  between  science  and  religion  is  caused 

*  William  Keith  Brooks  Memorial  Meeting,  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity Circulars,  1909. 

185 


i86  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

largely  by  this  misunderstanding.  Bishop  Butler 
in  his  "Analogy  of  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion" 
defines  natural  as  "that  which  is  stated,  fixed, 
settled,"  and  Charles  Darwin  put  this  quotation 
from  Butler  opposite  the  title-page  of  his  book  "On 
the  Origin  of  Species."  The  supernatural  is  that 
which  is  either  opposed  to  nature  in  that  it  is  not 
stated,  fixed,  settled,  and  hence  is  capricious  or  ac- . 
cidental,  or  it  also  is  natural,  though  we  may  not 
at  present  recognize  the  order,  system,  and  laws 
which  lie  back  of  it. 

A.    Popular  Misconceptions  of  Nature 
AND  THE  Supernatural 

Many  things  were  once  supposed  to  be  due  to 
supernatural  causes  which  are  now  known  to  be 
wholly  natural.  Primitive  conceptions  of  the  uni- 
verse represented  everything  as  supernatural  in  the 
sense  of  being  due  to  the  will  or  caprice  of  the 
gods.  The  most  regular  and  usual  happenings 
such  as  the  course  of  the  sun  through  the  sky,  the 
rising  and  setting  of  sun  and  moon  and  stars,  the 
winds  and  waves,  thunder  and  lightning  and  storm 
were  the  direct  acts  of  certain  deities.  And  much 
more  were  extraordinary  happenings,  like  earth- 
quakes, volcanic  eruptions,  comets,  eclipses,  and 
floods,  attributed  to  the  anger  of  the  gods.  How- 
ever, such  phenomena  were  in  time  shown  to  be 
the  natural  results  of  natural  causes,  and  intelli- 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  187 

gent  persons  no  longer  regard  them  as  super- 
natural though  they  inspire  awe  and  reverence  as 
much  as  they  ever  did. 

No  one  now  maintains  that  such  phenomena  in 
the  inanimate  world  are  supernatural,  but  the 
universality  of  law  and  system  in  the  living  world 
is  not  so  generally  admitted.  In  particular  the 
psychic  phenomena  of  animals  and  especially  of 
man  have  appeared  to  be  more  than  natural.  The 
usefulness  and  fitness  of  many  instincts  and  emo- 
tions, the  truly  marvellous  qualities  of  memory  and 
intelligence,  the  freedom  and  power  of  the  will  have 
long  seemed  to  prove  that  the  mind  and  soul  are 
supernatural.  And  yet  psychology  reveals  the  fact 
that  the  mind  no  less  than  the  body  is  subject 
to  natural  laws,  and  that  our  thoughts  and  wills 
and  emotions  are  not  as  free  and  capricious  as  we 
sometimes  think,  but  that  they  also  are  ordered 
and  natural. 

We  are  conscious  of  the  fact  that  we  can  by  tak- 
ing thought  modify  our  behavior;  we  can  choose 
to  do  or  not  to  do  certain  things  and  under  strong 
stimulus  we  can  force  ourselves  to  do  such  extraor- 
dinary things  that  the  belief  has  arisen  that  the 
will  is  absolutely  free;  that  it  is  an  uncaused  cause, 
which  stands  apart  from  and  outside  of  nature. 
But  careful  examination  shows  that  this  belief  is 
untenable  and  untrue.  We  know  that  in  many 
cases  our  choices  are  determined  by  causes,  such 


1 88  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

as  instincts,  emotions,  experiences,  thoughts,  exam- 
ples, admonitions,  ideals;  and  in  all  cases  a  study 
of  our  own  behavior,  as  well  as  that  of  others, 
shows  that  our  acts  are  never  uncaused.  Our  acts 
and  choices  are  determined  by  many  causes,  some 
of  which  are  external  and  others  internal;  they  are 
not  absolutely  fixed  but  are  more  or  less  plastic; 
they  are  not  lawless  and  causeless,  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  are  not  rigidly  prescribed;  they 
illustrate  scientific  determinism  but  not  fatalistic 
predeterminism.*  The  fact  that  a  science  of  psy- 
chology is  possible  proves  that  there  are  princi- 
ples or  laws  in  the  psychical  as  well  as  in  the  physi- 
cal world,  and  that  in  this  sense  mind  and  soul  are 
natural  and  not  supernatural. 

But  even  if  the  phenomena  of  the  living  world 
are  not  supernatural  they  are  so  complex  and  won- 
derful that  some  philosophers  maintain  that  they 
are  not  capable  of  being  explained  as  the  results 
of  mechanistic  natural  causes.  Consequently  they 
maintain  that  life  must  include  some  undefined  and 
inexplicable  energy  or  entity  such  as  vital  force  or 
entelechy,  which  if  not  supernatural,  is  at  least  not 
mechanistic  or  casual  in  its  action.  They  main- 
tain that  mechanistic  explanations  of  life  are  never 
complete,  whether  with  regard  to  ordinary  physi- 
ology and  development,  or  to  regulation  and  re- 
generation after  injury,  or  to  animal  behavior  and 

*See  Conklin,  "Heredity  and  Environment,"  chap  VI. 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  189 

evolution.  In  all  of  these  processes  living  things 
act  as  if  they  were  guided  by  intelligent  purpose, 
or  as  if  the  end  were  in  view  from  the  beginning. 
However,  a  detailed  and  experimental  study  of 
many  of  these  vital  activities  shows  that  useful  and 
apparently  purposive  actions  are  the  outcome  of 
the  elimination  of  many  useless  responses  and  the 
preservation  and  continuance  of  useful  ones,  and 
experimental  biologists  are  well-nigh  unanimous  in 
the  opinion  that  the  phenomena  of  the  living  world 
no  less  than  those  of  inanimate  nature  are  not  only 
natural  but  that  they  are  also  causal  and  mecha- 
nistic. 

However  no  scientific  or  mechanistic  explanation 
of  anything  is  ever  complete.  No  one  can  explain 
the  properties  of  water  by  its  chemical  composi- 
tion, and  yet  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  those 
properties  are  indissolubly  associated  with  that 
composition;  no  one  can  completely  explain  any 
function  of  a  living  thing  in  terms  of  its  structure, 
or  any  structure  in  terms  of  function,  and  yet  we 
know  that  they  are  invariably  associated.  The 
fact  is  that  structure  and  function,  body  and  mind, 
brain  and  consciousness  appear  to  be  two  aspects 
of  one  thing — namely,  organization  or  life — and 
neither  can  be  fully  explained  in  terms  of  the  other. 

In  the  union  of  chemical  elements  properties  ap- 
pear which  could  never  have  been  predicted  from 
the  properties  of  the  elements,  as,  for  example,  in 


iQO  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

the  union  of  hydrogen  and  oxygen  to  form  water; 
and  in  the  combinations  of  vital  units  new  proper- 
ties arise  which  were  not  present  in  the  units.  This 
latter  process  Bergson  calls  "creative  evolution," 
but  it  is  not  fundamentally  different  from  the  sim- 
ilar process  in  chemistry  which  is  known  as  "cre- 
ative synthesis."  If  a  mysterious  principle  called 
"vitahsm"  is  necessary  to  explain  the  properties 
of  life,  similar  reasoning  should  lead  one  to  attribute 
the  peculiar  properties  of  water  to  "hydrism"  or 
of  light  to  "photism." 

It  seems  unfortunate  that  those  who  are  con- 
cerned chiefly  to  prove  that  no  scientific  or  mecha- 
nistic explanation  is  ever  complete  should  thus  con- 
trast the  phenomena  of  the  living  and  the  not 
living  worlds  and  attempt  to  build  up  a  distinction 
that  is  not  only  indefensible  but  is  worse  than  use- 
less, since  it  logically  leads  to  the  view  that  the 
essential  factors  of  biology,  as  contrasted  with  all 
other  sciences,  are  forever  beyond  the  reach  of  sci- 
entific investigation.  Both  animate  and  inanimate 
nature  are  full  of  mysteries,  and  none  of  our  so- 
called  "explanations"  ever  reach  to  the  heart  of 
things,  but  it  is  evident  that  both  the  living  and  the 
lifeless  belong  to  the  same  universe.  After  all,  the 
principle  which  the  advocate  of  natural  religion  is 
concerned  to  prove  is  not  vitalism  but  teleology, 
and  while  the  latter  is  strikingly  exhibited  in  or- 
ganisms, it  is  not  confined  to  these  alone,  but  is 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  191 

found  in  the  whole  order  and  system  of  nature,  as 
we  shall  see  in  a  later  section. 

Little  by  little  all  sorts  of  mysterious  phenomena 
which  were  once  considered  supernatural  have  been 
shown  to  be  natural,  and  everywhere  supernat- 
uralism  has  been  losing  ground  and  naturalism 
has  been  gaining.  But  there  is  still  a  wide-spread 
belief  among  people,  who  have  not  appreciated  the 
significance  of  this  fact,  that  while  ordinary  events 
occur  according  to  nature,  nevertheless  natural 
laws  may  from  time  to  time  be  set  aside  or  abro- 
gated and  supernatural  phenomena  may  be  inter- 
posed among  natural  ones.  In  this  conception, 
nature  is  only  that  which  is  ordinary  and  usual, 
while  that  which  is  extraordinary  or  unusual  is 
supernaturaL 

There  are  still  large  areas  in  which  popular  belief 
in  the  supernatural  prevails,  and  from  time  to  time 
revivals  of  this  belief  carry  us  back  to  the  condi- 
tions of  earlier  times.  To-day  a  new  supernatural- 
ism  is  abroad  in  the  world  as  one  of  the  legacies  of 
the  Great  War.  All  sorts  of  supernatural  manifes- 
tations have  been  reported  on  the  battle-fields,  in 
the  camps,  and  elsewhere.  One  recalls  the  appari- 
tion of  the  Angel  of  Mons  and  of  the  Virgin  at 
Metz,  the  new  interest  in  spiritism,  ouija-boards, 
and  the  like.  Those  who  regard  such  things  as 
supernatural  manifestations  and  not  as  myths  or 
superstitions  do  so  generally  because  they  desire 


192  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

to  believe  in  the  supernatural,  and  not  infrequently 
this  desire  is  catered  to  by  conscious  deceivers. 
Fakirs  generally  have  turned  largely  to  the  exploi- 
tation of  the  supernatural,  and  their  methods  are 
now  quite  up  to  date.  The  old  tricks  of  table- 
tippings  and  spirit-rappings  and  writing  by  unseen 
hands  is  giving  place  to  telephonic  and  wireless 
communications,  while  ghostly  faces  are  revealed 
on  photographic  or  X-ray  plates.  Great  emotional 
crises  are  peculiarly  favorable  to  such  manifesta- 
tions, whereas  in  the  clear,  cold  light  of  reason 
they  fade  away  as  all  ghosts  do. 

The  renewed  interest  in  spirit  manifestations 
which  has  spread  over  England  and  America  since 
the  war  is,  in  many  respects,  similar  to  the  belief 
in  witchcraft  which  swept  over  different  countries 
of  Europe  during  the  Middle  Ages,  and  which  lasted 
in  some  places  well  into  the  eighteenth  century. 
Standing  is  given  to  such  ignorant  superstitions  by 
a  few  intellectual  and  scientific  sponsors,  who  can 
always  be  found  for  any  novel  or  sensational  belief, 
whether  it  be  a  denial  of  the  laws  of  causality  or  of 
the  value  of  scientific  methods,  a  belief  in  perpetual 
motion,  clairvoyance,  ghosts,  miracles,  divine  heal- 
ers, or  reincarnations.  All  such  beliefs  represent 
a  protest  against  the  slow  and  rational  methods  of 
arriving  at  truth  by  careful  and  repeated  observa- 
tions and  experimentations,  and  a  belief  that  by 
means  of  authority  or  inspiration,  or  occultism  or 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  193 

mysticism,  truth  may  be  established  more  rapidly 
and  successfully  than  by  the  slow  methods  of  sci- 
ence. But  the  history  of  all  such  movements  in 
the  past  abundantly  confirms  the  conclusion  that 
there  is  no  royal  road  to  truth,  and  no  possibility 
of  making  real  progress  in  human  knowledge  except 
by  the  slow  and  laborious  methods  of  science. 

But  while  most  persons  who  have  had  training 
in  distinguishing  facts  from  fancies,  realities  from 
vain  imaginings,  unite  in  rejecting  these  manifes- 
tations of  "spirits,"  no  one,  not  even  the  most  crass 
materialist,  can  successfully  deny  the  existence  of 
what  we  call  ''spirit,"  meaning  by  this  thought, 
emotions,  ideals,  aspirations,  and  volitions.  These 
are  as  much  a  part  of  human  nature  as  are  our 
blood  and  bones  and  brains,  but  there  is  not  a 
particle  of  evidence  that  they  are  supernatural; 
on  the  contrary  they  can  be  proved  to  be  natural, 
orderly,  and  causal.  The  real  issue  between  those 
who  believe  in  supernaturalism  and  those  who  do 
not  is  whether  an5rwhere  there  are  satisfactory  evi- 
dences that  such  spiritual  phenomena  are  un- 
caused, undetermined,  unlawful.  I  know  of  no 
such  evidence. 

B.    Scientific  Conception  of  Law 

During  the  past  three  hundred  years,  and  espe- 
cially during  the  past  century,  there  has  been  de- 
veloping a  scientific   conception  of  nature  as  a 


194  EVOLUTION  AND   RELIGION 

system  of  eternal,  universal  laws.  According  to 
this  view  nothing  happens  in  the  universe  by  law- 
less chance  or  caprice;  even  chance  and  volition 
have  their  laws,  they  also  are  a  part  of  nature  and 
are  "stated,  fixed,  and  settled."  This  is  not  to 
say  that  nature  is  lacking  in  many  of  the  qualities 
which  time  out  of  mind  have  been  ascribed  to  the 
supernatural,  such  as  mystery,  infinity,  and  super- 
human power.  Science  indeed  has  revealed  to  us  a 
universe  that  is  vastly  greater,  more  wonderful 
and  more  mysterious  than  was  ever  dreamed  of 
before,  but  it  is  an  orderly,  stable,  settled  universe 
and  not  one  of  chance  or  caprice.  Usually  all  that 
is  meant  by  the  word  "supernatural"  is  super- 
human or  wonderful,  and  the  modern  conception 
of  nature  has  only  magnified  these  qualities. 

Of  course  no  scientist  in  his  senses  supposes  that 
the  whole  of  nature  has  been  explored  or  that 
more  than  a  faint  beginning  has  been  made  in 
the  discovery  of  natural  laws.  "There  are  more 
things  in  heaven  and  earth  than  are  dreamed  of 
in  our  philosophy."  Many  phenomena  which  are 
now  mysterious  and  which  are  sometimes  supposed 
to  be  supernatural  may  yet  be  explained  as  due  to 
natural  processes,  but  this  would  only  prove  that 
what  had  been  termed  supernatural  is  really  natural. 
Although  it  is  impossible  to  demonstrate  that  every- 
thing is  natural,  because  everjlhing  has  not  yet 
been  explored,  it  is  true  that  everything  that  has 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  195 

been  thoroughly  investigated  has  been  found  to 
be  natural,  and  this  justifies  the  conclusion  that 
nature  is  universal. 

Science  attempts  to  classify  phenomena,  to  re- 
duce them  to  order,  to  determine  the  regular  suc- 
cession of  cause  and  effect.  It  "explains"  particu- 
lar events  by  showing  that  they  come  under  general 
categories  or  "laws."  For  example,  it  is  said  that 
the  law  of  gravity  explains  not  only  the  falling  of 
bodies  on  the  earth,  but  also  the  forms  and  move- 
ments of  the  earth  and  of  the  heavenly  bodies. 
But  this  means  only  that  many  different  phenomena 
can  be  brought  into  one  category.  That  all  mate- 
rial bodies  attract  one  another  "directly  as  their 
mass  and  inversely  as  the  square  of  their  distance" 
is  one  of  the  greatest  generalizations  of  science, 
but  it  explains  only  by  classifying.  It  offers  no 
explanation  of  why  bodies  attract  one  another  in 
this  way.  It  reveals  a  mechanism  of  nature  but 
it  does  not  account  for  that  mechanism. 

Science  deals  only  with  mechanisms  and  proc- 
esses, with  the  constant  relation  of  cause  and  effect, 
with  the  laws  or  usual  operations  of  matter  and 
energy  and  life,  with  what  Euripides  called  "the 
unfailing  order  of  immortal  nature."  In  short  it 
studies  the  mechanisms  by  which  things  have  come 
to  be  what  they  are,  but  it  cannot  explain  the  origin 
of  these  mechanisms  nor  the  purpose  which  they 
subserve.    It  explains  the  development  of  an  egg 


196  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

by  revealing  the  steps  by  which  the  egg  changes 
into  the  adult;  it  explains  heredity  by  the  initial 
constitution  of  the  germplasm;  it  explains  evolu- 
tion from  amoeba  to  man  by  the  original  constitu- 
tion of  amoeba,  or  of  the  chemical  elements  of 
which  amoeba  is  composed,  or  of  the  electrons  con- 
stituting the  elements.  In  short  it  pushes  back 
the  mystery  to  earlier  and  earlier  causes  but  in  the 
last  cause  studied  it  leaves  that  mystery  as  great 
and  inexplicable  as  ever. 

Philosophy  and  religion  seek  to  go  farther  than 
this  and  to  penetrate  the  mystery  that  lies  back  of 
the  laws  and  mechanisms  of  nature.  A  mechanism 
or  machine,  in  ordinary  usage,  signifies  an  instru- 
ment for  accompHshing  a  result  and  this  result  is 
itself  the  most  significant  aspect  of  a  mechanism; 
it  is  the  ^'purpose"  for  which  the  machine  exists. 
Science  reveals  nature  as  a  vast  mechanism,  philos- 
ophy and  religion  see  in  this  mechanism  a  purpose. 
Science  maintains  that  everything  happens  accord- 
ing to  natural  laws;  philosophy  and  religion  in- 
quire into  the  origin  of  these  laws.  Science  ex- 
plains all  phenomena  as  natural;  philosophy  and 
religion  maintain  that  the  greatest  of  all  mysteries 
is  nature. 

In  the  field  of  science  the  idea  of  the  supernatural 
is  due  to  a  small  and  insufficient  view  of  nature. 
'^ Nature  is  everything  that  is."  In  the  field  of 
philosophy  and  religion  the  laws  and  order  and  me- 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  197 

chanisms  of  nature,  which  are  the  ultimate  facts 
of  science,  themselves  require  an  explanation. 
Such  things  are  beyond  the  reach  of  science  and 
exact  knowledge,  but  not  beyond  the  reach  of  rea- 
son and  faith.  In  conclusion  we  may  say  with  the 
scientists  that  all  is  natural  in  that  it  is  "stated, 
fixed,  settled";  and  with  philosophers  and  theo- 
logians that  all  is  supernatural  in  that  nature  can- 
not explain  itself.  ''The  tormenting  riddle,  eternal 
and  inexplicable,  is  the  existence,  not  of  the  uni- 
verse, but  of  nature."  * 

C      SUPERNATURALISM   IN   RELIGION 

In  religion  only  has  a  general  belief  in  the  occa- 
sional abrogation  of  natural  laws,  and  the  inter- 
position of  supernatural  phenomena  among  those 
that  are  natural,  persisted  to  this  day.  Indeed 
many  persons  believe  that  this  kind  of  occasional 
supernaturalism  is  the  very  foundation  of  religion, 
and  to  them  a  natural  religion  is  a  contradiction 
in  terms.  Nevertheless  it  is  evident  that  the  new 
wine  of  science  is  fermenting  powerfully  in  the  old 
bottles  of  theology. 

General  belief  in  a  supernatural  revelation  at- 
tested by  supernatural  miracles  and  influencing 
the  lives  of  men  by  supernatural  processes  has 
been  undergoing  change.  The  universality  of  law 
in  the  natural  world  has  led  men  to  look  for  natural 

*  Henderson,  L.  J.    "The  Order  of  Nature,"  p.  208. 


iqS  evolution  and  religion 

law  in  the  spiritual  world  also.  Supernaturalism 
even  in  religion  is  a  great  stumbling-block  to  those 
who  find  naturalism  everywhere  else;  it  makes 
religion  not  only  unnatural  but  unreal  to  many. 
Accordingly  we  find  among  scientific  exponents  of 
religion  a  strong  current  in  the  direction  of  natural- 
ism rather  than  supernaturalism.  The  conflict 
regarding  the  natural  and  the  supernatural  is  no 
longer  exclusively  between  antagonists  and  de- 
fenders of  religion,  it  is  also  between  scientific  and 
unscientific  defenders. 

(a)  One  of  the  first  of  these  conflicts  between 
naturaUsm  and  supernaturalism  in  religion  con- 
cerned the  completeness  and  inerrancy  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. For  centuries  their  supernatural  origin 
and  absolute  perfection  were  stoutly  maintained. 
St.  Augustine  taught  that  the  Bible  contained  the 
sum  total  of  all  human  knowledge  to  the  end  of 
time.  It  was  sometimes  held  to  be  a  text-book  of 
all  sciences  as  well  as  of  faith  and  practice.  Such  a 
claim  was  on  a  par  with  that  ascribed  by  legend  to 
the  Kalif  Omar  regarding  the  Koran,  who  is  said  to 
have  declared  concerning  the  great  Alexandrian 
Museum:  "If  the  books  agree  with  the  Koran  they 
are  useless  and  need  not  be  preserved;  if  they  dis- 
agree with  it  they  are  pernicious.  Let  them  there- 
fore be  destroyed."  The  Christian  churches  have 
had  ages  of  Bibliolatry,  but  in  this,  as  in  all  other 
similar  matters,  there  can  be  but  one  outcome. 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  199 

The  Bible,  no  less  than  other  books,  has  been  sub- 
jected to  scientific  study  and  criticism.  Such  study 
has  shown  that  it  is  not  a  text-book  of  science  and 
that  it  is  not  supernaturally  free  from  errors. 

When  Galileo  was  charged  with  teaching  a  dan- 
gerous and  damnable  heresy  directly  opposed  to 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  it  is  fabled  that  he 
replied,  "The  Bible  was  given  to  tell  how  to  go  to 
heaven,  and  not  how  the  heavens  go."  This  answer 
and  all  that  it  implies,  if  once  accepted  and  believed, 
would  go  far  to  quiet  the  age-long  controversy 
between  science  and  theology.  I  respectfully  sub- 
mit that  when  it  is  attempted  to  make  the  Bible 
teach  astronomy,  geology,  biology,  or  any  other 
science,  the  real  objects  of  the  Scriptures  are  lost 
sight  of,  the  cause  of  religion  is  not  advanced  and 
knowledge  is  not  increased.  If  time  permitted, 
I  think  it  could  be  shown  that  the  history  of  past 
controversies  abundantly  justifies  this  statement. 
Those  who  insist  on  taking  the  Bible  as  a  text- 
book of  science,  sufficiently  complete  to  establish 
or  destroy  any  scientific  doctrine,  have  learned 
little  from  the  history  of  such  claims  in  the  past; 
they  can  know  but  little  of  the  patient,  pains- 
taking labors  of  the  scientific  investigator,  or  of  the 
rights  of  a  science  in  its  own  sphere. 

{b)  Miracles  which  were  once  supposed  to  prove 
the  existence  of  the  supernatural  and  the  authen- 
ticity of  rehgion  have  become  a  source  of  doubt 


200  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

rather  than  of  faith  in  this  scientific  age.  Many 
theologians  who  have  felt  the  spirit  of  science 
explain  them  as  allegories  or  as  natural  phenomena 
not  understood  by  those  who  witnessed  them.  And 
the  consensus  of  intelligent  opinion  throughout 
the  world  is  that  if  supernatural  miracles  were 
performed  in  former  times,  they  do  not  occur  to- 
day:  "The  age  of  miracles  is  past.'* 

Many  devout  believers  in  the  actuality  of  the 
biblical  miracles  seek  natural  rather  than  super- 
natural explanations  of  them,  as,  for  example,  the 
passage  of  the  Red  Sea,  the  lightnings  and  thunders 
of  Sinai,  the  sun's  standing  still  upon  Gibeon, 
Elijah  and  the  chariot  of  fire,  etc.  In  this  connec- 
tion many  Princetonians  will  recall  Dr.  Macloskie's 
explanation  of  Jonah's  having  found  lodgment  in 
the  laryngeal  chamber  of  the  whale,  where  he  could 
breathe,  rather  than  in  its  stomach  where  he  must 
have  been  suffocated.  Most  persons  have  heard 
natural  explanations  of  the  feeding  of  the  multi- 
tude, the  stilling  of  the  tempest,  the  healing  of  the 
sick,  the  conversion  of  Paul,  and  many  other  New 
Testament  miracles.  The  eagerness  with  which 
people  grasp  at  parthenogenesis  as  a  natural  ex- 
planation of  the  virgin  birth,  or  at  suspended  life 
and  anabiosis  as  an  explanation  of  the  resurrection, 
shows  how  profound  is  the  belief  in  the  universality 
of  natural  law  even  in  the  case  of  many  who  believe 
in  the  actuality  of  the  phenomena  called  miracles. 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  201 

More  and  more  the  religious  world  is  turning 
away  from  the  supernatural  aspects  of  the  miracles 
to  the  moral  lessons  which  they  convey,  from  a 
literal  interpretation  of  them  to  their  spiritual 
significance.  More  and  more  all  thoughtful  people 
are  seeing  that  nature,  rather  than  the  super- 
natural, is  the  greatest  of  all  miracles.  What  can 
be  more  miraculous,  in  the  original  sense  of  that 
word,  than  the  order  of  nature,  the  laws  of  matter 
and  energy,  the  course  of  evolution  from  amoeba 
to  man,  the  development  of  the  human  body  and 
mind  and  personality  from  an  egg?  Not  without 
reason  did  Mahomet,  when  asked  to  work  miracles, 
point  to  the  clouds  and  say,  ''Those  are  God's 
miracles." 


V 

EVOLUTION  VS.   CREATION 

For  centuries  science  has  been  engaged  in  glori- 
fying the  commonplace,  in  showing  that  natural 
phenomena  are  due  to  natural  causes,  and  that  the 
most  stupendous  as  well  as  the  most  subtle  phenom- 
ena, removed  from  us  perhaps  by  almost  an  eternity 
of  time  and  space,  are  but  manifestations  of  con- 
tinuous natural  processes  which  we  may  see  and 
study  for  ourselves  in  the  common  phenomena  of 
our  daily  lives.  At  every  step  in  this  process, 
science  has  had  to  contend  with  intrenched  super- 
naturalism;  to  our  ancestors  it  was  self-evident 
that  extraordinary  occurrences  required  extraor- 
dinary causes,  and  that  natural  causes  were  wholly 
inadequate  to  accomplish  great  results.  But  step 
by  step,  before  advancing  knowledge  of  nature, 
supernaturalism  retired  from  the  plane  of  ordinary 
phenomena  until  she  dwelt  only  in  the  misty  moun- 
tain tops  of  origins,  beginnings,  creations;  and 
day  by  day  there  was  a  growing  respect  for  nature 
and  her  powers. 

Granted  that  wind  and  sun  and  rain,  the  regular 
recurrence  of  the  seasons,  that  human  birth  and 
growth  and  death,  and  that  even  normal  and  ab- 
normal psychoses  are  natural  phenomena,   it  is 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  203 

yet  contended  by  many  that  in  the  origin  of  things, 
and  especially  in  the  origin  of  the  living  world,  the 
supernatural  is  supreme.  "How  we  were  secretly 
wrought  in  the  womb,"  "how  the  foundations  of 
the  earth  were  laid,"  how  animals  and  plants  and 
life  itself  first  arose  were  supposed  to  be  beyond  the 
reach  of  natural  explanation  and  a  sure  proof  of 
supernatural  creation.  But  the  study  of  embry- 
ology has  shown  that  we  were  wrought  by  natural 
processes,  that  development,  although  wonderful, 
is  not  supernatural;  geology  has  found  that  the 
earth  was  formed  according  to  natural  laws ;  evolu- 
tion teaches  that  the  origin  and  transformations 
of  living  things  are  the  results  of  natural  causes. 

It  is  true  that  science  never  penetrates  as  far  as 
the  ultimate  origin  and  cause  of  anything.  Like 
those  ancient  myths  which  represented  the  earth 
as  resting  upon  a  tortoise  and  the  tortoise  on  an 
elephant,  which  was  ultimately  left  unsupported, 
so  science  traces  effects  to  causes  and  these  to 
other  causes,  but  in  the  end  leaves  the  last  cause 
unexplained.  Science  maintains  that  so  far  as 
experience  goes,  every  event  is  due  to  pre-existing 
natural  causes,  and  it  assumes  that  this  chain  of 
cause  and  effect  stretches  back  ad  infinitum,  though 
of  course  this  cannot  be  proven.  This  chain  may 
end  in  a  first  cause,  an  uncaused  cause.  But  if  so 
we  may  be  sure  that  science  will  never  be  able  to 
discover  it,  for  it  lies  beyond  the  reach  of  finite 


204  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

knowledge  and  experience.  The  ultimate  origin 
of  the  universe  is  utterly  inaccessible  to  science. 
But  regarding  the  proximate  origin  of  the  solar 
system,  the  earth,  the  various  forms  of  life  upon  the 
earth,  and  last  of  all  man,  there  is  good  scientific 
evidence  that  here  also  nature  is  supreme,  that 
here  also  law,  continuity,  uniformity  prevail.  So 
far  as  we  know  or  can  conclude  from  present  evi- 
dence, mechanism,  law,  and  order  are  universal 
and  have  been  so  from  all  eternity. 

In  this  conflict  of  science  with  tradition  there 
have  been  crises,  turning-points,  no  less  important 
for  mankind  than  any  which  are  associated  with 
the  rise  and  fall  of  nations;  such  a  crisis  was 
reached  when  astronomy  was  emancipated  from 
the  thraldom  of  supernaturalism  by  Newton  and 
Laplace;  when  geology  was  freed  by  Hutton  and 
Lyell  from  the  absurd  cataclysmal  theory,  which 
virtually  taught  that  age  after  age  the  Creator, 
experimenting  at  world  building,  found  the  results 
not  good,  and  so  wiped  them  out  and  began  again ; 
but  probably  no  similar  crisis  has  had  so  profound 
an  effect  upon  mankind  as  that  revolution  in  our 
notions  of  the  genesis  of  the  living  world  which  we 
associate  pre-eminently  with  the  name  of  Charles 
Darwin. 

Without  doubt  the  greatest  scientific  generaliza- 
tion of  the  last  century  is  the  theory  of  organic 
evolution.    The  only  other  which  can  be  compared 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  205 

with  it,  the  doctrine  of  the  conservation  of  energy, 
has  not  so  profoundly  influenced  human  life  nor  so 
greatly  changed  all  the  currents  of  human  thought. 
Evolution  has  not  only  transformed  biology,  psy- 
chology, sociology,  and  anthropology,  but  it  has 
given  a  new  point  of  view  to  all  science,  art,  and 
even  religion.  "The  great  theory  of  evolution," 
said  John  Fiske,  "is  rapidly  causing  us  to  modify 
our  opinions  on  all  subjects  whatsoever." 

Evolution  is  only  one  of  many  teachings  of  science 
which  have  come  into  conflict  with  theology,  but 
because  of  the  fact  that  supernaturalism  made  its 
last  and  strongest  stand  on  the  creation  of  the 
living  world,  and  especially  of  man,  it  has  been  for 
more  than  a  generation  the  centre  of  this  conflict. 
Because  organic  evolution  substitutes  natural  trans- 
mutation for  supernatural  creation,  it  has  been  said 
that  it  contradicts  the  biblical  account  of  creation 
and  denies  the  existence  or  need  of  a  Creator; 
because  it  explains  adaptations  as  the  result  of 
natural  selection  it  has  been  held  to  destroy  the 
evidences  of  design  in  nature;  because  of  its  con- 
clusions as  to  the  origin  and  nature  of  man  it  has 
been  accused  of  debasing  man  and  reducing  him  to 
the  level  of  the  beasts.  Consequently  it  is  not 
surprising  that  evolution  has  been  generally  re- 
garded as  having  more  important  bearings  on  the- 
ology and  religion  than  any  other  scientific  doc- 
trine. 


VI 

EVOLUTION  AND   THE  BIBLICAL 
ACCOUNT 

It  has  been  asserted  that  evolution  contradicts 
the  biblical  account  of  creation;  however  it  ought 
not  take  one  long  to  discover  that  although  the 
Bible  says  that  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth,  the  herb,  the  tree,  the  worm,  the  fish,  the 
beast,  and  finally  man,  it  does  not  describe  the 
exact  process  by  which  he  made  them,  and  it  is 
this  very  question  of  process  with  which  evolution 
deals.  I  shall  not  attempt  any  subtile  reconcilia- 
tion of  geology  and  Genesis  or  of  evolution  and 
Revelation.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  Bible  teaches 
evolution  or  gravitation  or  the  undulatory  theory 
of  light;  nor  on  the  other  hand  do  I  believe 
that  it  contradicts  these  generalizations  of  science. 
The  first  chapter  of  Genesis  gives,  not  a  literal  and 
scientific  account  of  creation,  but  a  poetic  and 
symbolic  account.  The  simple  but  majestic  lan- 
guage of  the  creation-story  tells  to  all  people  of 
all  grades  of  intelligence  that  back  of  the  creature 
there  is  a  Creator.  No  intelligent  person  now  main- 
tains that  it  teaches  that  all  things  were  made  in 
six  literal  days;  we  could  not  if  we  would  main- 
tain that  it  teaches  the  exact  number  and  sequence 

3o6 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION         '     207 

of  geologic  ages;  wny  should  any  one  attempt 
to  maintain  that  it  teaches  the  exact  process  of 
creation  ? 

The  traditional  view  of  special  creation  is  not 
founded  upon  the  Mosaic  account,  as  is  commonly 
supposed.  There  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  the 
author  of  that  account  meant  to  teach  that  God 
created  a  single  pair  of  each  species,  as  is  so  often 
maintained,  and  that  these  species  have  ever  since 
remained  perfectly  distinct.  On  the  contrary, 
some  of  the  church  fathers,  notably  St.  Augustine 
and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  believed  in  a  kind  of 
evolution.  The  current  view  that  there  was  a  sepa- 
rate creation  for  each  species  and  that  there  are 
"as  many  species  as  issued  in  pairs  from  the  hand 
of  the  Creator"  did  not  attain  any  prominence 
until  the  time  of  the  great  naturalists,  Ray  and 
Linnaeus,  and  its  chief  literary  expression  is  found 
not  in  Genesis,  but  in  the  seventh  book  of  Milton's 
"Paradise  Lost."  Huxley,  therefore,  very  properly 
calls  it  the  Miltonic  rather  than  the  Mosaic  hy- 
pothesis. "Theology  has  taken  upon  itself  the 
thankless  task  of  defending  a  long-abandoned 
scientific  theory  which  is  without  a  particle  of 
biblical,  ecclesiastical,  or  patristic  sanction." 

Any  one  who  is  accustomed  to  scientific  methods 
of  inquiry  must  have  been  astonished  again  and 
again  at  the  crude  ideas  or  lack  of  ideas  which 
many  persons  who  believe  in  the  special  creation 


2o8  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

of  man  exhibit  with  regard  to  the  details  of  that 
process.  Those  who  are  most  bitter  in  their  de- 
nunciation of  the  "monkey  theory,"  as  they  term 
evolution,  are  sorely  puzzled  if  required  to  give 
some  precise  idea  regarding  the  process  by  which 
they  conceive  that  God  created  man.  The  biblical 
account  reads,  "And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of 
the  dust  of  the  ground  and  breathed  into  his  nos- 
trils the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living 
soul."  Here  is  process  and,  for  aught  we  know  to 
the  contrary,  slow  and  gradual  process.  More 
than  that,  some  humble  ingredients  enter  into 
this  human  dough,  even  the  dust  of  the  earth. 
Since  the  Scriptures  plainly  speak  of  a  process  in 
the  creation  of  man,  the  opponents  of  the  theory 
of  evolution  ought  to  be  able  at  least  to  conceive 
of  a  dignified  and  divine  way  in  which  the  Creator 
fashioned  man;  but,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  this 
they  do  not  do.  The  idea  that  the  eternal  God 
took  mud  or  mortar  and  moulded  it  with  hands  or 
tools  into  the  human  form  is  not  only  irreverent, 
it  is  ridiculous.  How  much  more  like  the  usual 
workings  of  that  power,  by  whom  and  through 
whom  are  all  things,  is  the  view  of  evolution  that 
God  made  the  first  man  as  he  has  made  the  last, 
and  that  his  creative  power  is  manifest  just  as 
truly  and  as  greatly  in  the  origin  of  the  last  child 
of  Adam,  as  in  the  origin  of  Adam  himself. 


VII 
IS  EVOLUTION  ATHEISTIC? 

Undoubtedly  the  usual  conception  of  God  as 
Creator  and  Ruler  is  that  he  is  a  supernatural 
being,  a  Great  and  Good  Man  in  the  skies,  who 
created  the  universe  out  of  nothing,  set  it  going,  and 
watches  over  it  to  see  that  it  goes  right;  that  he 
estabHshed  natural  laws  by  his  word  but  now  and 
again  suspends  them  in  order  to  accomplish  par- 
ticular purposes  or  to  benefit  his  worshippers.  The 
scientific  conception  of  nature  and  of  the  univer- 
sality of  natural  law  conflicts  with  this  idea,  but 
it  does  not  deny  the  existence  of  that  which  is 
symbolized  by  the  word  "God."  Many  scientific 
generalizations  have  been  condemned  as  atheistic 
because  they  substitute  natural  processes  for  super- 
natural volitions,  and  chief  among  these  is  the 
theory  of  evolution. 

There  has  long  been  a  wide-spread  misunder- 
standing in  the  popular  mind  regarding  evolution. 
That  it  is  a  great  scientific  question  is  rarely  con- 
sidered; that  it  is  the  only  attempt  to  solve  by 
natural  processes  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  organ- 
isms is  wholly  disregarded.  It  is  frequently  looked 
upon,  not  as  a  law  of  nature,  but  as  "an  invention 

whereby  it  is  hoped  to  get  rid  of  a  God."    Even 

209 


2IO  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

Thomas  Carlyle  could  see  nothing  in  it  but  an 
atheistic  theory,  a  gospel  of  dirt:  "I  have  known 
three  generations  of  Darwin's,  atheists  all.  .  .  .  Ah ! 
it  is  a  sad  and  terrible  thing  to  see  nigh  a  whole 
generation  of  men  and  women  professing  to  be  cul- 
tivated, looking  around  in  a  purblind  fashion  and 
finding  no  God  in  this  universe.  .  .  .  And  this 
is  what  we  have  got;  all  things  from  frog-spawn; 
the  gospel  of  dirt  the  order  of  the  day." 

Such  a  view  can  arise  only  from  the  most  funda- 
mental misconception  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution. 
It  neither  affirms  nor  denies  the  existence  of  a  God; 
it  deals  only  with  processes  and  does  not  profess  to 
touch  the  question  of  ultimate  causation.  It  is  no 
more  atheistic  to  believe  that  individuals  and  spe- 
cies originally  came  into  existence  according  to  the 
natural  law  of  development  or  evolution  than  it  is 
to  believe  that  individuals  now  come  into  the  world 
according  to  this  law.  If  the  evolution  of  the  spe- 
cies is  an  atheistic  doctrine,  so  is  the  development  of 
the  individual.  "Evolution,"  said  Prof.  Tyndall, 
"does  not  solve  nor  profess  to  solve  the  ultimate 
mystery  of  this  universe.  It  leaves,  in  fact,  that 
mystery  untouched."  Darwin,  himself,  held  that 
the  theory  was  quite  compatible  with  the  belief  in 
a  God;  and  in  one  of  his  last  letters,  he  wrote:*  "I 
have  never  been  an  atheist  in  the  sense  of  denying 
the  existence  of  God." 

*-'Life  and  Letters,"  vol,  I,  p.  274. 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  211 

Evolution  is  no  more  diagnostic  of  a  man's 
views  concerning  theism  than  is  politics.  The 
custom,  therefore,  of  sharply  distinguishing  two 
kinds  of  evolution,  theistic  and  atheistic,  is  unfortu- 
nate. One  might  as  well  speak  of  theistic  and  athe- 
istic gravitation.  Theists  and  atheists  may  accept 
or  reject  either  theory,  but  the  fact  of  such  accep- 
tance or  rejection  in  no  way  changes  the  scientific 
character  of  the  theory  as  such,  nor  does  it  even 
remotely  touch  the  evidences  for  the  existence  of  a 
God.  These  evidences  stand  quite  apart  from  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  evolution. 

Science  deals  only  with  secondary  causes;  it 
never  reaches  the  first  cause.  It  traces  effects  to 
causes  and  these  to  pre-existing  causes  and  so  on 
until  the  process  must  stop,  hanging  in  mid  air  as 
it  were,  without  finding  the  first  cause.  Infinity 
lies  back  of  every  phenomenon,  even  the  simplest. 
Observation,  experiment,  and  reason  are  the  organs 
of  science  and  with  these  alone  it  cannot  reach  **  Him 
whom  eye  hath  not  seen  nor  ear  heard."  And  yet 
where  science  ends  faith  begins,  and  like  the  child 
or  the  savage,  the  philosopher  or  scientist  may  still 
say,  "In  the  beginning — God." 

If  the  universe  is  finite  and  had  a  beginning, 
there  must  have  been  a  first  cause  which  was  itself 
uncaused.  But  if  the  universe  is  really  eternal, 
nature  and  natural  law  are  also  eternal.  Which 
of  these  two  conceptions  is  correct  can  never  be 


212  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

known  by  finite  minds  for  the  problem  lies  beyond 
the  reach  of  human  knowledge.  But  either  view 
is  consistent  with  behef  in  a  God.  In  the  former 
case  the  Supreme  Being,  the  great  First  Cause  that 
organized  and  started  the  universe  and  estabhshed 
natural  laws  is  beyond  and  above  nature;  he  is  the 
"great  exception,"  the  one  Supernatural  Being  in  all 
the  universe.  In  the  latter  case  God  is  in  nature, 
the  reason  in  all  natural  law,  the  purpose  in  all 
natural  processes,  the  supreme  Mind  and  Will  of 
the  universe.  Whether  animals  and  plants  and  the 
world  itself  arose  by  special  and  sudden  creation  or 
are  the  result  of  an  immensely  long  process  of  evo- 
lution, infinite  power  and  wisdom  are  as  neces- 
sary in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other;  yes,  I  think 
that  there  is  a  greater  manifestation  of  the  omnipo- 
tence, omnipresence,  omniscience  of  an  Infinite 
Being  in  the  process  of  evolution  than  in  that  of 
creation  itself. 

Evolution  has  revived  the  old  controversy  as  to 
the  government  of  the  universe.  Even  as  in  the 
days  of  Newton  and  Laplace,  it  is  claimed  by  some 
persons  to-day  that  this  theory,  like  that  of  gravi- 
tation, is  but  a  subterfuge  to  "drive  God  out  of 
his  universe  and  put  a  law  in  his  place."  As  long  as 
the  view  is  held  that  God  is  not  present  in  natural 
laws  the  conflict  between  science  and  theology  must 
continue.  The  only  satisfactory  ground  of  recon- 
ciliation between  the  two  in  this  matter  is  to  be 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  213 

found  in  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  immanence  in 
all  natural  phenomena.  More  and  more  all  kinds 
of  phenomena  are  being  reduced  to  law.  We  are 
beginning  to  recognize  that  we  do  not  live  in  a 
world  of  chance  or  caprice  but  in  one  of  law,  and 
if  God  is  present  only  in  those  phenomena  which 
cannot  be  reduced  to  law,  he  is  being  speedily  and 
certainly  crowded  to  a  narrow  and  narrower  mar- 
gin. But  if  he  is  in  all  law,  then  is  he  in  the  world 
as  much,  yes  more  than  ever;  and  every  blazing 
autumn  hedge  is  really  the  burning  bush  out  of 
whose  midst  the  Omnipresent  speaks,  every  clod 
is  sacred  ground,  every  day  is  a  holy  day,  and  we  all 
live  in  the  constant  presence  of  Deity. 

"The  sun,  the  moon,  the  stars,  the  seas,  the  hills,  and  the 
plains, — 
Are  not  these,  O  Soul,  the  Vision  of  Him  who  reigns? 

God  is  law,  say  the  wise,  O  Soul,  and  let  us  rejoice, 
For  if  he  thunder  by  law  the  thunder  is  yet  his  voice."* 

The  theory  of  evolution  has  given  men  sublimer 
conceptions  of  the  world  and  of  its  Creator  than 
has  any  rival  doctrine.  Contrast  the  old  geocentric 
and  anthropocentric  views  of  the  universe  with 
the  infinitely  larger  view  which  science  has  revealed. 
Contrast  the  old  view  of  creation  in  six  literal  days 
with  the  revelations  of  science  as  to  the  immensity 

*  Tennyson,  "The  Higher  Pantheism." 


214  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

and  eternity  of  natural  processes.  Contrast  the 
old  views  that  all  organisms  arose  suddenly  by 
divine  fiat  with  the  view  that  animals  and  plants 
and  the  world  itself  are  the  results  of  a  long  process 
of  evolution. 

As  Darwin  so  beautifully  says:  "There  is  grand- 
eur in  this  view  of  life  with  its  several  powers  hav- 
ing been  originally  breathed  by  the  Creator  into  a 
few  forms  or  into  one,  and  that  whilst  this  planet 
has  gone  cycling  on  according  to  the  first  laws  of 
gravity,  from  so  simple  a  beginning  endless  forms, 
most  beautiful  and  most  wonderful,  have  been  and 
are  being  evolved."* 

There  is  grandeur  in  this  view  of  man  as  the 
climax  of  all  these  vast  ages  of  past  evolution,  as 
the  highest  and  best  product  of  this  eternal  process, 
as  the  culmination  of  the  lives  and  experiences 
of  innumerable  multitudes  of  the  predecessors  of 
man.  There  is  grandeur  in  this  view  of  the  Creator 
and  of  his  relation  to  the  world.  Consider  the 
eternal  patience,  wisdom,  lawfulness  which  has 
through  countless  ages  wrought  out  our  present 
world;  consider  the  continual  process  of  evolution, 
the  continual  presence  of  the  Creator  in  all  natural 
processes,  and  then  contrast  with  this  the  idea  of  a 
universe  made  out  of  nothing  in  six  literal  days 
by  the  word  of  a  great  Workman,  who  stands  out- 
side his  creation  and  watches  it  run ! 

*  Darwin,  Charles.     "The  Origin  of  Species,"  last  paragraph. 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  215 

Caird*  says:  ''It  is  impossible  for  any  one  who 
has  breathed  the  spirit  of  modern  science,  modern 
literature,  and  modern  ethics,  to  believe  in  a  purely 
objective  God;  to  worship  any  power  of  nature  or 
even  any  individualized  outward  image,  such  as 
those  of  Apollo  or  Athene.  Still  less  is  he  able  to 
worship  a  multitude  of  such  images  and  so  to  com- 
pensate for  the  defect  of  one  imperfect  form  by 
introducing  others  to  supplement  it.  His  God  must 
be  universal,  and  if  he  tries  to  picture  him  in  an 
outward  form,  he  will  soon  find  it  impossible  to 
rest  in  any  one  object,  and  will  repeat  in  his  own 
experience  the  dialectic  by  which  Polytheism  disap- 
peared in  the  abstract  unity  of  Pantheism.  .  .  .  We 
cannot  think  of  the  infinite  Being  as  a  will  which  is 
external  to  that  which  it  has  made.  We  cannot 
indeed  think  of  him  as  external  to  anything,  least 
of  a-li  to  the  spiritual  beings  who,  as  such,  live  and 
move  and  have  their  being  in  him." 

God  in  the  form  of  a  Great  Man  in  the  skies  is 
both  supernatural  and  unreal.  How  gross  and 
blasphemous  is  the  crude  anthropomorphism  which 
represents  God  as  a  ''gaseous  vertebrate";  how 
terrible  are  the  oaths  of  some  hundred  or  more  years 
ago  when  men  swore  by  the  body,  blood,  bones, 
teeth,  and  other  organs  of  God!  Contrast  with 
these  crude  material  conceptions  God  in  the  form 
of  natural  processes: 

*  Caird,  Edward,  he.  cit.,  p.  195. 


2i6  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

"  Whose  dwelling  is  the  light  of  setting  suns, 
And  the  round  ocean  and  the  living  air, 
And  the  blue  sky,  and  in  the  mind  of  man: 
A  motion  and  a  spirit,  that  impels, 
All  thinking  things,  all  objects  of  all  thought, 
And  rolls  through  all  things."* 

God  in  all  truth  and  beauty  and  love,  in  the  order 
and  constitution  of  the  universe,  in  the  eternal 
and  immutable  laws  of  nature,  in  the  mind  and 
soul  of  man !  Here  is  something  natural,  real,  and 
sublime,  something  which  appeals  to  the  intellect 
as  well  as  to  the  emotions,  something  which  in- 
spires awe  and  reverence,  something  which  influ- 
ences conduct  and  shapes  character. 

"The  God  who  satisfies  our  conscience,"  said 
Charles  Kingsley,  "ought  more  or  less  satisfy  our 
reason  also.  To  teach  that  was  Butler's  mission 
and  he  fulfilled  it  well.  But  it  is  a  mission  which 
has  to  be  refulfiUed  again  and  again  as  human 
thought  changes  and  human  science  develops.  For 
if,  in  any  age  or  country,  the  God  who  seems  to 
be  revealed  by  nature  seems  also  different  from  the 
God  who  is  revealed  by  the  then  popular  religion, 
then  that  God  and  the  religion  which  tells  of  that 
God  will  gradually  cease  to  be  believed  in.  For 
the  demands  of  reason,  as  none  knew  better  than 
good  Bishop  Butler,  must  be  and  ought  to  be 
satisfied.     And   therefore,    when   a   popular   war 

*  Wordsworth,  "Tintern  Abbey." 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  217 

arises  between  the  reason  of  any  generation  and 
its  theology,  then  it  behooves  the  ministers  of  reli- 
gion to  inquire,  with  all  humility  and  godly  fear, 
on  whose  side  lies  the  fault;  whether  the  theology 
which  they  expound  is  all  that  it  should  be  or 
whether  the  reason  of  those  who  impugn  it  is  all 
that  it  should  be." 


VIII 

EVOLUTION  AND  THE  DOCTRINE  OF 
DESIGN 

Everywhere  the  universe  is  a  cosmos  and  not 
a  chaos;  "Order  is  heaven's  first  law."  Order  is 
seen  in  the  whole  stellar  universe,  the  solar  system, 
the  earth;  it  is  strikingly  evident  in  the  phenomena 
of  physics  and  chemistry;  but  the  order  and  fitness 
of  nature  reach  a  climax  in  the  living  world. 

Henderson  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
many  remarkable  fitnesses  or  preparations  for  life 
are  found  in  the  lifeless  world.  Many  of  the  proper- 
ties of  water,  carbon  dioxide,  and  the  chemical 
compounds  of  carbon,  hydrogen,  and  oxygen  are 
unique  and  these  unique  properties  are  essential 
to  life;  without  them  life  could  not  exist,  and  they 
are  so  numerous  that,  as  Henderson  says,  "There  is 
not  one  chance  in  countless  millions  of  millions 
that  the  many  unique  properties  of  carbon,  hydro- 
gen, and  oxygen,  and  especially  of  their  stable 
compounds,  water  and  carbonic  acid,  which  chiefly 
make  up  the  atmosphere  of  a  new  planet,  should 
simultaneously  occur  in  the  three  elements  other- 
wise  than   through   the   operation   of   a   natural 

law  which  somehow  connects  them  together.    There 

218 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  219 

is  no  greater  probability  that  these  unique  proper- 
ties should  be,  without  due  cause,  uniquely  favora- 
ble to  the  organic  mechanism.  These  are  no  mere 
accidents;  an  explanation  is  to  seek.  It  must 
be  admitted,  however,  that  no  explanation  is  at 
hand."* 

The  one  most  striking  and  prominent  character- 
istic of  Hving  things  is  the  apparent  purpose  which 
is  manifested  in  all  their  structures  and  habits. 
The  adaptations  of  organisms  to  environment, 
of  means  to  ends,  of  structures  to  habits  has  ever 
been  and  still  is  the  greatest  problem  of  biology. 
These  adaptations  of  organisms  are  so  precise  and 
wonderful  that  they  seem  to  imply  intelligent 
design.  Indeed  it  is  very  difficult  to  describe  them 
without  saying  that  they  exist  for  this  or  that 
"purpose,"  and  if  a  pure  mechanist  succeeds  in 
avoiding  the  use  of  this  particular  word  by  substi- 
tuting for  it  some  other  term,  such  as  ''significance" 
or  "use,"  he  cannot  wholly  avoid  the  idea  of  pur- 
pose. 

It  is  scarcely  possible  to  speak  of  any  structure 
or  function  of  an  animal  or  plant  that  does  not 
illustrate  such  adaptations.  Think  of  the  fitness 
of  various  types  of  limbs  for  locomotion  on  land, 
in  water,  and  in  air;  of  the  various  kinds  of  ali- 
mentary organs  for  the  digestion  and  absorption 
of  different  sorts  of  food;  of  the  many  contrivances 

*  Henderson,  L.  J.     "The  Fitness  of  the  Environment,"  p.  276. 


220  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

for  offense  and  defense,  which  different  organisms 
possess.  Consider  the  remarkable  structures  and 
habits  for  insuring  cross-fertilization  in  animals  and 
plants  and  for  the  protection  and  nourishment  of 
the  young.  Think  of  the  fitness  of  the  skeleton  for 
support,  of  the  muscles  for  contraction,  of  the  heart 
with  its  valves  for  pumping  blood,  of  the  nervous 
system  for  receiving  and  transmitting  stimuli; 
think  of  the  fitness  of  the  eye  for  seeing,  of  the 
ear  for  hearing,  of  the  nose  for  smelling;  think  of 
the  fitness  of  every  organ  for  its  particular  use,  and 
then  consider  the  peculiar  fitness  with  which  all 
these  organs  and  all  their  innumerable  parts  are 
co-ordinated  into  one  harmonious  whole.  Viewed 
in  this  light  "what  a  piece  of  work  is  a  man,"  or 
any  other  organism ! 

Or  consider  the  wonderful  adaptations  to  be 
seen  in  the  reactions  and  tropisms  of  the  simplest 
organisms;  in  the  instincts  and  habits  of  higher 
animals;  in  the  development  of  intelligence  and 
reason  in  man.  Even  one-celled  animals  and  plants 
seem  to  be  guided  by  intelligence  though  we  know 
that  this  is  not  really  true;  however  in  general 
they  avoid  injurious  environments  and  find  bene- 
ficial ones,  and  they  have  solved  their  problems 
of  nutrition,  reproduction,  and  defense  almost  as 
perfectly  as  have  the  highest  animals.  The  in- 
stincts of  the  different  members  of  a  colony  of  ants 
or  bees  are  very  complex  and  very  different,  and  yet 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  221 

all  are  wonderfully  well  adapted  to  the  preserva- 
tion and  prosperity  of  the  colony.  The  migratory 
habits  of  fishes  and  birds  are  even  more  remarkable; 
the  value  of  these  habits  is  easily  seen,  but  what 
series  of  natural  causes  can  explain  their  origin? 
Finally,  consider  that  the  marvellous  instincts,  in- 
telligence, and  psychic  capacity  of  man  have  de- 
veloped out  of  the  apparently  simple  reactions  of 
a  germ  cell  and  that  this  whole  process  of  develop- 
ment has  been  so  co-ordinated  and  every  step  has 
been  so  well  adapted  and  directed  that  it  leads  to 
consciousness  and  reason  and  purpose ! 

How  can  all  these  marvellous  fitnesses  of  the 
living  world  and  its  environment  be  explained? 
The  unhesitating  answer  of  the  naive  person  is  that 
each  and  every  one  of  them  must  have  been  de- 
signed in  detail  by  an  intelligent  and  supernatural 
Designer.  And  yet  when  studied  in  detail  it  is 
evident  that  each  adaptation  is  a  natural  rather 
than  a  supernatural  phenomenon,  though  it  is 
by  no  means  certain  that  in  the  last  analysis  it  is 
the  result  of  chance  or  pure  mechanism.  Some 
of  the  world's  great  philosophers  and  scientists, 
from  Aristotle  and  Plato  to  Kant,  Schopenhauer, 
Lamarck,  Cope,  Bergson,  Driesch,  and  Henderson, 
have  maintained  that  the  fitness  and  order  of  na- 
ture can  be  explained  only  by  assuming  that  there 
is  some  sort  of  teleological  principle  in  nature,  which 
lies  back  of  or  runs  parallel  with  the  principle  of 


22  2  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

causality — something  which  acts  more  or  less  like 
human  will  or  purpose,  and  which  is  itself  an  un- 
caused cause  lying  outside  the  field  of  scientific 
inquiry. 

Kant  has  expressed  this  opinion  in  a  well-known 
passage:  ''It  is  quite  certain  that  we  cannot  be- 
come sufficiently  acquainted  with  organized  crea- 
tures and  their  hidden  potentialities  by  aid  of 
purely  mechanical  natural  principles,  much  less 
can  we  explain  them:  and  this  is  so  certain  that 
we  may  boldly  assert  that  it  is  absurd  for  man 
even  to  conceive  such  an  idea,  or  to  hope  that  a 
Newton  may  one  day  arise  to  make  even  the  pro- 
duction of  a  blade  of  grass  comprehensible,  accord- 
ing to  natural  laws  ordained  by  no  intention." 

Haeckel  and  other  pure  mechanists  have  hailed 
Darwin  as  Kant's  impossible  Newton  of  the  living 
world  and  his  theory  of  "natural  selection"  as  the 
purely  mechanical  principle  which  accounts  for  the 
adaptations  of  organisms.  Darwin  proved  in  mas- 
terly manner  that  overpopulation  leads  to  a  struggle 
for  existence,  and  in  this  struggle  the  unfit  are 
eliminated  and  the  fit  are  favored.  In  this  way 
many  of  the  remarkable  adaptations  of  the  living 
world  can  be  causally  explained,  and  if  this  princi- 
ple of  the  elimination  of  the  unfit  is  extended  from 
whole  organisms  to  parts  of  organisms,  germinal 
units,  and  even  to  the  reactions  of  individual  or- 
ganisms, it  is  possible  that  all  kinds  of  adapta- 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  223 

tions  may  be  thus  explained.  The  origin  of  fitness 
rather  than  the  "origin  of  species"  is  the  greatest 
problem  in  the  world  of  life  and  it  is  the  crowning 
glory  of  Darwin's  theory  that  it  offers  a  mechanistic 
solution  of  this  eternal  problem  of  life  and  evolu- 
tion. 

If  this  be  true,  does  it  not  finally  dispose  of  tele- 
ology in  nature  ?  I  think  not,  although  it  undoubt- 
edly modifies  that  doctrine  and  substitutes  natural 
causes  for  supernatural  ones.  In  the  light  of  Dar- 
win's theory  we  see  that  adaptations  are  the  results 
of  natural  causes;  the  causal  mechanism  appHes  to 
all  the  fitnesses  of  nature  as  well  as  to  other  phe- 
nomena; but  back  of  all  mechanism,  or  running 
through  all  mechanism,  is  teleology  or  purpose. 

From  the  standpoint  of  science  and  philosophy 
the  origin  of  this  order  and  mechanism  is  the  great 
secret  of  the  universe.  Science  deals  only  with 
mechanisms  and  a  purely  scientific  explanation 
must  be  mechanistic,  but  there  is  no  mechanical 
explanation  for  the  ultimate  mechanism  of  the 
universe;  mechanism  cannot  explain  itself.  The 
mechanism  of  a  locomotive  will  explain  what 
it  does,  but  it  will  not  explain  its  origin  nor  the 
purpose  which  it  subserves.  The  organization  of 
an  animal  or  plant  or  egg  is  said  to  explain  what 
it  does  but  it  will  not  explain  the  teleological  na- 
ture of  that  organization. 

Biologists  no  longer  think  of  any  adaptation  as 


2  24  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

having  been  directly  created  for  the  purpose  which 
it  now  serves  but  rather  as  having  been  slowly 
developed  in  the  course  of  evolution.  Neverthe- 
less in  tracing  an  adaptation  to  its  sources  we  do 
no  more  than  transfer  the  origin  of  fitness  to  earlier 
causes.  We  may  explain  the  fitness  of  the  eye  as 
due  to  its  ontogenetic  development,  and  this  as 
due  to  heredity  and  environment,  but  this  does 
not  explain  how  the  potentiaHties  of  the  eye  came 
to  be  in  the  germplasm.  We  have  merely  shifted 
the  problem  to  an  earlier  stage.  And  the  same  is 
true  of  the  evolution  of  eyes;  our  explanation  of 
the  origin  of  eyes  may  be  that  they  are  due  to 
mutation  and  natural  selection,  or  to  the  inherited 
effects  of  use  and  disuse,  but  in  either  case  we  do 
not  explain  the  fact  that  eyes  were  potentially 
present  in  these  causes.  We  have  merely  shifted 
the  problem  from  the  fitness  of  results  to  the  fitness 
of  the  causes  of  those  results;  and  in  spite  of  Darwin 
and  his  great  theory  it  is  still  true  that  no  Newton 
has  yet  arisen  "to  make  even  the  production  of  a 
blade  of  grass  comprehensible,  according  to  natural 
laws  ordained  by  no  intention." 

Most  of  all  when  we  consider  the  whole  course  of 
evolution  from  amoeba  to  man,  from  the  simplest 
motor  responses  to  the  development  of  intelligence 
and  reason  capable  of  studying  the  universe  and  its 
origin,  are  we  impressed  with  the  thought  that 
evolution  must  have  been  guided  by  something 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  225 

other  than  chance.  If  progressive  evolution  is 
increasing  complexity  of  organization  and  increas- 
ing adaptation  to  the  environment,  it  is  surely  no 
accident  that  organization  and  environment  have 
been  so  correlated  that  they  have  led  to  the  per- 
fection of  adaptation  which  we  see  all  about  us. 
Evolution  has  not  been  an  eternal  see-saw;  it  has 
led  somewhere.  The  fact  that  organisms  can  adapt 
themselves  to  changing  environment  is  no  accident ; 
the  fact  that  environment  has  so  changed  as  to 
bring  about  progress  is  no  accident.  Philosophi- 
cally it  is  impossible  to  escape  the  conclusion  that 
evolution  has  revealed  a  larger  teleology  than  was 
ever  dreamed  of  before — a  teleology  which  takes  in 
not  only  the  living  but  also  the  lifeless  world. 

Given  water,  carbon  dioxide,  and  the  carbon 
compounds  with  the  unique  properties  to  which 
Henderson  has  called  attention,  and  it  is  conceiva- 
ble that  hfe  could  have  arisen  through  the  operation 
of  natural  laws;  and  again  when  once  life  and  its 
mechanisms  are  given  the  living  world  could  have 
evolved  through  the  operation  of  natural  laws. 
In  the  transformations  of  germplasm  and  of  inher- 
itance units  we  probably  have  the  mechanism  of 
evolution,  and  in  the  survival  of  the  fit  and  the 
elimination  of  the  unfit  we  probably  have  the  mech- 
anism of  adaptation.  But  the  great  problem  and 
mystery  which  Hes  back  of  all  this  mechanism  is 
how  the  environment  favorable  to  life  came  to 


226  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

have  these  unique  properties,  how  it  happened  that 
all  the  multitudes  of  co-operating  factors  necessary 
to  the  origin  of  Ufe  came  together  in  the  right  way 
and  at  the  right  time,  how  primitive  protoplasm 
came  to  contain  the  potencies  of  all  future  evolu- 
tion, and  how  it  happens  that  the  environment 
was  such  as  to  bring  out  these  potencies  in  the 
long  course  of  evolution. 

These  are  not  scientific  problems,  for  they  are 
probably  beyond  the  reach  of  science  and  exact 
knowledge,  but  not  beyond  the  reach  of  philosophy 
and  religion.  The  philosophical  mind  refuses  to 
believe  that  purpose  in  human  behavior  and  fitness 
in  nature  are  merely  the  result  of  chance,  even  of 
many  chances.  As  well  might  one  try  to  explain 
the  play  of  Hamlet  as  due  to  an  explosion,  or  a 
series  of  explosions  in  a  printing  office.  Many  of 
the  most  profound  students  of  nature  from  Aris- 
totle to  modern  evolutionists  have  found  it  neces- 
sary to  assume  the  existence  of  some  initial  teleo- 
logical  principle.  Weismann  held  tenaciously  to 
a  mechanistic  conception  of  nature,  but  he  also 
held  that  extreme  mechanism  was  consistent  with 
extreme  teleology;  indeed  he  maintained  that 
"The  most  complete  mechanism  conceivable  is 
likewise  the  most  complete  teleology  conceivable. 
With  this  conception  vanish  all  apprehensions  that 
the  new  views  of  evolution  would  cause  man  to  lose 
the  best  that  he  possesses — morality  and  purely 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  227 

human  culture."  And  no  less  a  mechanist  than 
Huxley  said,  ''Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  ser- 
vice to  the  philosophy  of  biology  rendered  by  Mr. 
Darwin  is  the  reconciliation  of  teleology  and  mor- 
phology, and  the  explanation  of  the  facts  of  both 
which  his  views  offer.  The  teleology  which  sup- 
poses that  the  eye,  such  as  we  see  it  in  man  or  one 
of  the  higher  vertebrata,  was  made  with  the  pre- 
cise structure  which  it  exhibits,  for  the  purpose  of 
enabling  the  animal  which  possesses  it  to  see,  has 
undoubtedly  received  its  death-blow.  Neverthe- 
less it  is  necessary  to  remember  that  there  is  a 
wider  teleology,  which  is  not  touched  by  the  doc- 
trine of  evolution,  but  is  actually  based  upon  the 
fundamental  proposition  of  evolution."  And  Dar- 
win himself  confesses  "the  extreme  difficulty  or 
rather  impossibility  of  conceiving  this  immense 
and  wonderful  universe,  including  man  with  his 
capacity  of  looking  far  backward  and  far  into 
futurity,  as  the  result  of  blind  chance  or  necessity. 
When  thus  reflecting,"  he  continues,  "I  feel  com- 
pelled to  look  to  a  First  Cause  having  an  intelligent 
mind  in  some  degree  analogous  to  that  of  man ;  and 
I  deserve  to  be  called  a  Theist.  This  conclusion 
was  strong  in  my  mind  about  the  time,  as  far  as  I 
can  remember,  when  I  wrote  the  'Origin  of  Species'; 
and  it  is  since  that  time  that  it  has  very  gradually, 
with  many  fluctuations,  become  weaker.  But  then 
arises  the  doubt,  can  the  mind  of  man,  which  has, 


228  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

as  I  fully  believe,  been  developed  from  a  mind  as 
low  as  that  possessed  by  the  lowest  animal,  be 
trusted  when  it  draws  such  grand  conclusions?"  * 

The  probabilities  are  almost  infinity  to  one 
against  the  conclusion  that  the  order  of  nature,  the 
fitness  of  the  environment  for  hfe,  and  the  course 
of  progressive  evolution  with  all  of  its  marvellous 
adaptations  are  all  the  results  of  blind  chance. 
The  scientist  and  philosopher  may  explain  this 
order  and  harmony  by  a  mysterious  and  inexplica- 
ble teleological  principle,  but  the  convinced  theist 
will  regard  it  as  design.  Thus  upon  this  topic, 
Asa  Gray,  the  well-known  botanist,  said:  "The 
wiser  and  stronger  ground  to  take  is  that  the  deriv- 
ative hypothesis  leaves  the  argument  for  design, 
and  therefore  for  a  Designer,  as  valid  as  it  ever 
was;  that  to  do  any  work  by  instruments  must 
require,  and  therefore  presuppose,  the  exertion 
rather  of  more  than  of  less  power  than  to  do  it 
directly;  that  whoever  would  be  a  consistent  theist 
should  believe  that  Design  in  the  natural  world  is 
co-extensive  with  Providence,  and  hold  as  firmly 
to  the  one  as  he  does  to  the  other." 

On  the  other  hand  the  more  cautious  scientific 
attitude  is  well  expressed  by  Henderson  in  the  fol- 
lowing thoughtful  sentences:  "We  may  progres- 
sively lay  bare  the  order  of  nature  and  define  it 
with  the  aid  of  the  exact  sciences.    Thus  we  may 

*  "Life  and  Letters,"  vol.  I,  p.  282. 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  229 

recognize  it  for  what  it  is,  and  now  at  length  we 
clearly  see  that  it  is  teleological.  But  we  shall 
never  find  the  explanation  of  the  riddle,  for  it 
concerns  the  origin  of  things.  Upon  this  subject 
clear  ideas  and  close  reasoning  are  no,  longer  possi- 
ble, for  thought  has  arrived  at  one  of  its  natural 
frontiers.  Nothing  more  remains  but  to  admit 
that  the  riddle  surpasses  us  and  to  conclude  that 
the  contrast  of  mechanism  with  teleology  is  the 
very  foundation  of  the  order  of  nature,  which  must 
ever  be  regarded  from  two  complementary  points 
of  view,  as  a  vast  assemblage  of  changing  systems, 
and  as  an  harmonious  unity  of  changeless  laws  and 
qualities  working  together  in  the  process  of  evolu- 
tion." *  In  short,  science  reveals  to  us  a  universe 
of  ends  as  well  as  of  means,  of  teleology  as  well  as 
of  mechanism,  and  in  this  it  agrees  with  the  teach- 
ings of  philosophy  and  religion. 

*  "The  Order  of  Nature,"  pp.  208-209. 


IX 

THE  NATURE  OF   MAN 

The  theory  of  evolution  presumes  to  determine 
man's  place  in  nature  and  to  many  it  seems  that  it 
degrades  man  and  reduces  him  to  the  level  of  the 
beasts.  That  man  is  an  animal,  however,  no  one 
who  has  given  the  matter  any  consideration,  can 
for  a  moment  doubt.  The  entire  structure,  develop- 
ment, and  functions  of  man's  body  unmistakably 
proclaim  that  he  is  related  to  the  animals.  He  is 
born,  nourished,  and  reproduced,  he  is  subject  to 
the  laws  of  nature,  to  disease  and  death  as  is  the 
humblest  animal  or  plant.  Every  bone,  muscle, 
and  nerve  of  the  human  body  is  found  in  almost 
exactly  the  same  position  and  shape  in  the  higher 
mammals.  As  Romanes  says,  ''Here  we  have  a 
fact,  or  rather  a  hundred  thousand  facts,  which 
cannot  be  attributed  to  chance,  and  if  we  reject 
the  natural  explanation  of  hereditary  descent  from 
a  common  ancestry  we  can  only  suppose  that  the 
Deity  in  creating  man  took  the  most  scrupulous 
pains  to  make  him  in  the  image  of  the  beasts." 
According  to  his  physical  structure  man  must  be 
classified  as  an  animal,  a  vertebrate,  a  mammal, 

and  finally  a  primate,  to  which  order  the  monkeys 

230 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  231 

belong.  And  yet  there  are  emotionalists  who  deny 
this  animal  classij&cation.  John  Fiske  tells  of  a 
man  who  became  very  indignant  when  told  that  he 
was  a  mammal  and  exclaimed:  "I  am  not  a  mam- 
mal, nor  the  son  of  a  mammal."  He  adds  that  he 
had  probably  been  brought  up  on  a  bottle. 

Many  persons  can  see  in  such  animal  ancestry 
only  the  loss  of  dignity  and  the  degradation  of 
man,  and  I  freely  admit  that  as  sometimes  expound- 
ed by  evolutionists  this  opinion  is  justified.  If 
man  is  the  result  of  unintelligent  forces  and  proc- 
esses; if  as  one  biologist  has  said,  "The  evolu- 
tion of  consciousness  is  the  greatest  blunder  in  the 
universe";  if  men  are  born  by  millions  only  to  be 
swept  away  by  flood,  fire,  famine,  pestilence,  and 
war;  if  they  live  and  die  like  the  beasts  and  leave 
only  their  bones  and  implements  behind;  if  suffer- 
ing and  struggle  are  purposeless  and  lead  to  noth- 
ing— if  this  really  were  the  teaching  of  evolution 
then  certainly  it  would  be  true  that  evolution  de- 
bases man  and  destroys  the  hopes  of  mankind. 
But  this  is  not  true  and  it  is  not  the  teaching  of 
evolution  but  rather  of  pessimism  and  atheism. 

The  blighting  influence  of  atheism  is  shown  in 
just  such  conclusions  as  those  mentioned,  for  it 
substitutes  blind  chance  and  necessity  for  plan  and 
purpose,  both  in  nature  and  in  human  life.  If 
there  is  no  teleology  in  nature,  the  course  of  evo- 
lution leading  to  man  and  to  consciousness  is  the 


232  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

result  of  blind  and  blundering  accident.  If  there 
is  no  purpose  or  value  in  human  labor  and  suffer- 
ing, life  is  not  worth  living.  But  there  are  evi- 
dences of  teleology  in  nature  and  of  purpose  in 
human  life.  Even  struggle  and  suffering  and  death 
have  their  value  if  in  the  long  course  of  evolution 
they  lead  to  progress.  Men  do  not  die  and  leave 
only  their  bones  and  implements,  but  "they  rest 
from  their  labors  and  their  works  do  follow  them." 
"Others  have  labored  and  we  have  entered  into 
their  labors."  Civilization  is  what  it  is  to-day  be- 
cause of  the  labor  and  influence  of  millions  of  per- 
sons, most  of  whom  are  wholly  unknown  to  us. 
Only  a  few  men  have  achieved  immortal  fame,  but 
multitudes  have  contributed  to  human  progress. 

Granting  that  there  is  teleology  in  nature,  prog- 
ress in  evolution,  and  purpose  in  human  life,  it  does 
not  really  matter  from  the  standpoint  of  religion 
whether  the  universe  and  man  came  into  existence 
by  evolution  or  by  creation.  I  cannot  see  that  it 
is  any  more  degrading  to  hold  that  man  was  made 
through  a  long  line  of  animal  ancestry,  which  ulti- 
mately came  from  the  dust,  than  to  believe  that 
man  was  made  directly  from  the  dust.  Surely  the 
horse  and  the  dog  and  the  monkey  belong  to  higher 
orders  of  existence  than  do  the  clod  and  the  stone. 
Whether  we  accept  the  teaching  of  evolution  or  the 
most  literal  interpretation  of  the  biblical  account 
we  are  compelled  to  recognize  the  fact  that  our 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  233 

bodily  origin  has  been  a  humble  one;  as  Sir  Charles 
Lyell  once  said,  "It  is  mud  or  monkey."  Nature, 
revelation,  and  human  history  love  to  proclaim  the 
fact  that  lowliness  of  origin  is  not  inconsistent  with 
the  highest  ideals  of  perfection.  "They  that  deny 
a  God  destroy  man's  nobility,"  said  Bacon;  "for 
surely  man  is  of  kin  to  the  beasts  by  his  body; 
and  if  he  be  not  of  kin  to  God  by  his  spirit,  he  is 
an  ignoble  creature." 

To  those  whose  only  thought  of  the  animal 
creation  is  one  of  contempt  and  disgust,  the  sug- 
gestion of  man's  animal  ancestry  must  come  as  a 
cruel  shock.  But  those  whose  eyes  are  opened  to 
the  beauty  and  innocence,  the  joys  and  sufferings, 
the  strength  and  weakness,  the  intelligence  and 
affection  of  living  things;  those  who  believe  with 
Coleridge  that 

"He  prayeth  best  who  loveth  best 
All  things  both  great  and  small, 
For  the  dear  God  who  loveth  us, 
He  made  and  loveth  all"; 

— those  whose  lives  are  simple  and  who  are  not 
puffed  up  with  a  foolish  pride  as  to  their  own  dignity 
will  neither  be  ashamed  nor  afraid  to  follow  the 
example  of  St.  Francis  of  Assisi  who  called  the 
birds  his  brothers  and  thought  that  they  praised 
God  in  the  forest  as  the  angels  do  in  heaven. 
But  if  man  is  the  brother  of  the  animals,  he  is 


234  EVOLUTION  AND   RELIGION 

also  akin  to  the  Infinite.  The  glory  of  the  brute 
is  physical,  the  glory  of  man  is  intellectual,  social, 
spiritual.  The  perfection  reached  by  the  brute  is 
strength,  cunning,  at  best  moral  innocence;  the 
perfection  reached  by  man  is  intelligence,  reason, 
freedom,  faith,  hope,  love — in  short,  noble  char- 
acter. The  psychical  elements  which  in  animals  are 
"cabined,  cribbed,  confined"  reach  in  man  their 
fullest  expansion.  The  intellect,  the  emotions,  the 
will,  love,  mercy,  justice,  responsibiUty,  philan- 
thropy, conscience,  the  search  after  and  worship 
of  the  true,  the  beautiful,  the  good,  the  Infinite — 
these  proclaim  man  a  spiritual  being.  Evolution 
teaches  the  animal  ancestry  of  man,  but  in  spite  of 
this  it  does  not  degrade  him,  for  it  teaches  that 
he  is  the  consummation  of  this  stupendous  process. 
"The  dignity  of  man  is  not  due  to  the  fact  that  re- 
cently and  miraculously  he  was  launched  into  the 
world;  the  real  dignity  of  man  consists  not  in  his 
origin,  but  in  what  he  is  and  what  he  may  become." 
Evolution  unquestionably  denies  that  the  primi- 
tive condition  of  mankind  was  one  of  perfection 
as  measured  by  our  present  standards.  In  this 
regard  it  is  in  entire  accord  with  the  conclusions  of 
history  and  archaeology.  There  is  every  evidence 
that  human  history  has  been  a  development  from  a 
simpler  to  a  more  complex  state ;  in  short  an  evolu- 
tion. As  to  the  culture  of  the  prehistoric  period 
there  can  be  no  question  that  it  was  in  every  way 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  235 

simpler  and  more  primitive  than  that  of  the  his- 
toric era,  as  is  demonstrated  by  prehistoric  remains 
and  indirectly  proven  by  a  study  of  races  at  present 
in  the  prehistoric  condition. 

This  primitive  condition  of  the  race  could  scarce- 
ly be  called  a  state  of  perfection.  According  to 
the  biblical  account  Adam  and  Eve  were  naked, 
houseless,  uncultured;  in  body  fully  developed, 
in  mind  and  soul  children.  That  they  were  inno- 
cent as  children  are,  has  been  interpreted  by  many 
to  mean  that  they  were  perfect,  not  only  physically 
and  morally  but  also  intellectually.  Lyman  Abbott 
says  that  he  once  heard  a  preacher  say  in  one  of 
his  sermons  that  Adam  and  Eve  undoubtedly 
knew  all  about  the  telephone.  There  are  probably 
few  even  among  literalists  who  would  go  that  far 
to-day. 

As  a  result  of  this  animal  ancestry  many  animal 
instincts  survive  in  man  which  conflict  with  his 
higher  intellectual  and  social  life.  In  this  way 
there  comes  to  be  that  lack  of  inner  harmony  and 
social  fitness  to  which  all  religions  and  all  systems 
of  ethics  have  directed  attention.  This  is  the  main 
source  of  the  conflict  between  emotionalism  and 
rationalism,  between  the  individual  and  society. 
So  far  as  I  can  judge,  animals,  even  the  highest, 
are  not  troubled  by  a  sense  of  sin,  repentance,  or 
responsibility.  On  the  other  hand,  mankind  as  a 
whole  is  characterized  by  the  possession  of  such 


236  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

a  sense.  Between  animals  and  men  there  is  this 
great  difference.  If  man  came  from  the  animals 
he  also  must  have  come  from  an  irresponsible  and 
hence  an  innocent  condition.  Before  any  "fall" 
from  this  condition  was  possible  there  must  have 
been  the  step  upward  to  responsibility  and  moral 
consciousness.  So  far  as  we  know  the  highest 
animals  have  only  the  most  rudimentary  moral 
ideals.  Only  in  him  in  whose  soul  are  lofty  ideals 
can  there  be  any  adequate  consciousness  of  a  fall. 
A  man  whose  ideals  were  wholly  brutish  would 
have  no  condemnation  in  living  the  life  of  a  brute. 
But  he  who  has  awakened  to  the  fact  that  he  is  a 
social  and  moral  being,  who  knows  the  better  and 
does  the  worse,  he  has  fallen  from  the  higher  to 
the  lower.  Until  reason  and  the  moral  sense  are 
developed  in  man  there  can  be  no  fall;  there  is 
nothing  to  fall  from.  When  these  are  developed 
there  arises  a  conflict  between  the  old  habits  of 
unreason,  irresponsibility,  and  sensuous  pleasure 
and  the  new  ideals  of  reason,  responsibility,  and 
duty;  when  in  this  conflict  the  former  overcome 
the  latter  there  is  a  moral  fall.  In  this  sense  the 
"fall  of  man"  is  no  unique  historical  event;  it  is 
a  part  of  the  personal  experience  of  all  men. 


X 

THE   RELIGION  OF  EVOLUTION 

Francis  Galton  closes  his  book  on  "Inquiries 
into  Human  Faculties"  with  these  words:  *'The 
chief  result  of  these  inquiries  has  been  to  elicit 
the  religious  significance  of  the  doctrine  of  evolu- 
tion. It  suggests  an  alteration  in  our  mental  atti- 
tude and  imposes  a  new  moral  duty.  The  new 
mental  attitude  is  one  of  a  greater  sense  of  moral 
freedom,  responsibility,  and  opportunity;  the  new 
duty  which  is  supposed  to  be  exercised  concurrently 
with,  and  not  in  opposition  to,  the  old  ones  upon 
which  the  social  fabric  depends,  is  an  endeavor 
to  further  evolution,  especially  that  of  the  human 
race." 

A.  Progress  Through  Struggle 
The  religion  of  evolution  is  a  religion  of  progress 
through  struggle  and  efifort.  It  is  neither  pessi- 
mism nor  optimism,  but  realism.  It  recognizes 
the  existence  of  unfitness,  disharmony,  and  evil,  but 
interprets  these  as  challenges  to  their  alleviation. 
The  powers  of  nature  which  were  feared  and  dreaded 
by  our  savage  ancestors  have  been  harnessed  for 
the  service  of  man.  Great  catastrophes  in  which 
hundreds  of  lives  are  lost  in  fires  and  floods  and 

2*7 


238  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

wrecks  teach  a  lesson  which  even  ignorance  can 
appreciate,  namely  that  some  way  must  be  found 
to  avoid  these  things  in  the  future.  Disease,  suffer- 
ing, and  death  are  challenges  to  man  of  the  most 
insistent  and  persistent  sort  to  find  out  their  causes 
and  to  eliminate  or  control  them.  Millions  of 
human  beings  suffered  and  died  from  tuberculosis, 
plague,  cholera,  typhoid,  yellow  fever,  malaria, 
syphilis,  cancer,  and  other  diseases  before  remedies 
for  some  of  these  were  found,  and  millions  more  will 
suffer  and  die  before  they  are  eliminated — but  does 
any  far-seeing  person  doubt  that  this  will  ultimately 
be  achieved?  Injustice  and  crime,  ignorance  and 
superstition  are  not  useless  if  they  lead  society 
to  seek  out  their  causes  and  to  eliminate  them. 
Even  the  horrors  of  war  teach  a  lesson  which  the 
world  is  slowly  learning  and,  if  mankind  can  learn 
by  experience,  the  time  will  come  when  war  shall 
be  no  more.  And  as  to  the  inner  conflict  between 
emotion  and  reason,  selfishness  and  altruism,  evil 
and  good,  we  know  from  experience  that  progress 
can  be  made  only  by  effort;  that  inner  peace  does 
not  come  from  satiety  but  from  successful  struggle; 

"That  men  may  rise  on  stepping  stones 
Of  their  dead  selves  to  higher  things." 

The  religion  of  evolution  holds  forth  no  hope  of 
a  perfect  millennium  in  which  all  evil  shall  be  elimi- 
nated and  all  struggle  shall  cease.     On  the  con- 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  239 

trary  it  teaches  that  not  only  progress  but  even 
continued  existence  depends  upon  struggle  against 
adverse  conditions.  There  can  be  no  progress  of 
any  kind  without  struggle;  in  physical  evolution 
progress  has  depended  upon  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence; in  intellectual  evolution  upon  the  struggle 
for  freedom  and  enlightenment ;  in  social  evolution 
upon  the  struggle  of  ethical  ideals  and  instincts 
against  antisocial  ones.  Passively  waiting  for  evo- 
lution to  carry  us  to  the  skies  will  be  of  no  avail. 
Progress  is  no  necessary  part  of  evolution  and  in 
general  it  is  easier  to  go  backward  than  forward. 
The  further  evolution  of  man  must  depend  upon 
the  struggle  and  success  of  rational  efforts  and 
ideals.  We  must  seek  through  eugenics  and  eu- 
thenics  to  improve  the  bodies  of  men;  through 
education,  the  minds  of  men;  through  religion  the 
morals  of  men.  We  must  struggle  against  disease 
and  physical  defects,  against  effeminacy,  luxury, 
and  indolence,  and  against  the  retrogressive  selec- 
tion of  civilization;  we  must  struggle  against  igno- 
rance, illiteracy,  and  superstition;  against  bigotry, 
selfishness,  brutality,  and  hate.  The  struggle  against 
evil  in  general  is  thus  a  condition  of  social  progress, 
as  the  struggle  for  existence  against  adverse  con- 
ditions is  a  factor  in  physical  progress. 

Evolution  thus  offers  a  rational  solution  of  the 
great  problem  of  evil.  It  has  taught  us  that  there 
is  all  about  us  a  great  and  world-wide  struggle  for 


240  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

existence;  that  inaction  and  satiety  end  in  degen- 
eration and  that  advance  can  be  purchased  only 
by  struggle,  suffering,  and  death.  The  apparent 
malevolence  of  nature  finds  in  evolution  a  benef- 
icent explanation.  Measured  by  its  results  who 
will  say  that  the  outcome  of  evolution  is  not  worth 
all  that  it  has  cost  ?  Purposeless  struggle  and  suffer- 
ing would  be  evidence  of  malevolence;  but  evolu- 
tion has  shown  that  struggle,  suffering,  and  death 
when  viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  nature  as  a 
whole  are  not  purposeless,  but  rather  that  these 
things  are  factors  in  a  great  world  movement,  in  an 
infinite  process  of  evolution  in  which  the  "whole 
creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain  .  .  .  wait- 
ing for  the  manifestation  of  the  sons  of  God."  The 
religion  of  evolution  is  thus  at  one  with  the  re- 
ligion of  revelation. 

B.    Ethnocentric  rather  than  Egocentric 

A  religion  that  looks  merely  to  personal  rewards 
or  punishments  in  the  present  or  future  is  not  one 
of  the  highest  type;  on  the  other  hand  the  religion 
of  service  and  sacrifice  for  the  good  of  others,  the 
religion  of  which  Christ  was  the  great  exemplar, 
must  more  and  more  become  the  religion  of  human 
society  in  future  stages  of  evolution. 

In  the  past  religion  has  dealt  to  a  large  extent 
with  the  individual  and  his  relation  to  God;  its 
chief  concern  was  the  salvation  of  individual  souls 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  241 

and  their  preparation  for  a  future  life;  it  has  been 
largely  egocentric.  The  religion  of  the  future  must 
more  and  more  deal  with  the  salvation  of  society; 
it  must  be  ethnocentric.  Evolution  has  taught  us 
the  superlative  importance  of  the  race  or  species. 
Among  all  organisms  the  one  Hve's  for  the  many, 
the  individual  reproduces  and  labors  and  dies  for 
the  race.  In  man  no  less  than  in  lower  organisms 
the  welfare  and  evolution  of  the  species  is  of  supreme 
concern.  And  the  greatest  and  most  practical 
work  of  religion  is  to  further  the  evolution  of  a 
better  race.  This  religion  looks  forward  not  only 
to  better  individuals  as  its  ultimate  goal,  but  also 
to  a  better  association  of  individuals ;  to  a  rational 
organization  of  society  in  which  social  speciahza- 
tion  and  co-operation  will  be  greatly  increased,  in 
which  poverty  and  disease  will  be  greatly  decreased, 
in  which  heredity,  environment,  and  education  will 
be  greatly  improved. 

At  times  it  seems  that  selfishness  and  intolerance 
are  on  the  increase,  that  all  social  progress  has 
stopped  and  that  degeneration  and  disintegration 
have  set  in.  At  present  we  are  witnessing  an  out- 
break of  license  and  anarchy  on  one  side  and  of 
reaction  and  intolerance  on  the  other.  At  such 
times  it  is  especially  necessary  to  take  the  long  view 
of  human  evolution,  to  remember  from  what  so- 
ciety has  developed,  and  to  realize  that  in  the  course 
of  social  evolution  selfishness,  bigotry,  and  anarchy 


242  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

are  eliminated  as  foul  water  is  purified  in  flowing 
down  stream.  The  antisocial,  the  selfish,  and  the 
unscrupulous  find  that  as  their  hand  is  against 
every  man  so  is  every  man's  hand  against  them. 
This  is  the  law  of  reciprocity.  All  normal  men  are 
"Dowered  with  the  hate  of  hate,  the  scorn  of 
scorn,  the  love  of  love."  Service  is  not  only  the 
law  of  society,  it  alone  is  the  way  of  success.  The 
ethnocentric  religion  of  evolution  merely  supple- 
ments and  enforces  the  ethical  teachings  of  the 
most  advanced  religions;  in  all  of  them  the  goal  is 
the  same,  namely  service. 

If  it  be  true  that  the  fittest  physically  is  the  most 
viable,  the  fittest  intellectually  the  most  rational, 
the  fittest  socially  the  most  ethical,  then  it  follows 
that  in  the  long  run  natural  selection  will  operate 
against  the  less  viable,  the  less  rational,  and  the 
less  ethical.  There  is  "a.  power  not  ourselves  that 
makes  for  righteousness,"  for  reasonableness,  and 
for  fitness.  As  the  stars  in  their  courses  fought 
against  Sisera,  so  the  nature  of  things  makes  for 
progress. 

Can  this  religion  of  science  and  evolution  be 
incorporated  in  the  organized  religions  of  the  civi- 
lized world?  Can  religion  in  general  keep  pace 
with  the  intellectual  and  social  advance  of  man- 
kind? Can  it  rid  itself  of  its  useless  inheritances 
from  a  savage  past;  can  it  throw  off  the  relics  of 
fetichism,  emotionalism,  and  superstition;    can  it 


EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION  243 

be  saved  from  irrationalism,  literalism,  and  formal- 
ism ?  Can  Christianity  become  the  religion  of  rea- 
son and  science  as  well  as  of  emotion  and  faith 
and  be  made  the  power  for  individual  and  social 
progress  which  its  founder  intended? 

Certainly  progress  in  this  direction  has  been 
slow,  and  at  times  it  seems  as  if  religious  evolution 
had  come  to  an  end.  Thousands  of  thoughtful 
and  reverent  men  have  left  the  churches  and  re- 
nounced the  creeds,  the  literal  interpretation  of 
which  they  could  no  longer  support,  and  other 
thousands  have  been  prevented  from  doing  this 
only  by  the  hope  that  churches  and  creeds  might 
be  reformed  from  within.  We  must  recognize  the 
fact  that  complete  uniformity  of  belief  can  never 
be  attained  in  religion  any  more  than  in  politics 
or  anything  else.  Various  churches  and  faiths 
must  always  exist  for  various  types  of  human  be- 
ings. It  is  often  said  that  existing  forms  of  religion 
with  their  literalism  and  formahsm  are  well  adapted 
to  the  mass  of  mankind.  This  is  probably  true; 
most  men  are  not  greatly  interested  in  an  intellec- 
tual or  philosophical  type  of  religion,  but  all  men 
are  interested  in  higher  ideals  of  conduct  and  duty. 
In  all  progress  religion  should  lead  rather  than  lag 
behind,  and  at  least  its  intellectual  requirements 
need  not  be  so  primitive  as  to  drive  out  those  of 
more  advanced  intelligence. 

How  extraordinary  it  is  that  nineteen  centuries 


244  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

after  the  life  and  labors  of  the  greatest  religious 
teacher  and  social  reformer  in  the  history  of  man- 
kind, and  after  the  spread  of  his  teachings  over  all 
the  earth,  there  should  still  be  left  a  considerable 
body  of  his  so-called  followers  who  identify  re- 
ligion with  the  literalism  and  formalism  which  he 
condemned  and  whose  test  of  righteousness  is 
intellectual  assent  to  a  formal  creed  rather  than 
dedication  to  a  life  of  service !  But  to-day  we  are 
in  the  midst  of  a  religious  revolution,  which  is 
going  on  so  quietly  that  many  do  not  notice  it, 
although  it  is  a  greater  and  more  fundamental 
revolution  than  any  since  the  early  years  of  the 
Christian  era.  We  are  witnessing  great  changes 
in  the  attitude  of  the  churches  on  questions  of 
faith  and  science.  The  spirit  of  science  has  entered 
into  religion.  This  spirit  demands  not  uniformity 
of  belief  but  uniformity  of  aim,  not  absolute  and 
perfect  truth  but  the  best  available  truth,  not 
authority  but  evidence,  not  words  but  works;  and 
more  and  more  rehgion  is  demanding  these  things. 
The  time  may  come  sooner  than  some  of  us  expect 
when  in  all  things  except  spirit  and  purpose  re- 
ligion may  once  more  be  a  personal  matter;  when 
churches  will  welcome  all  "men  of  good-will"; 
when  love  of  God  and  love  of  fellow  men  will  be 
the  one  requirement  for  mutual  fellowship  and  ser- 
vice. When  that  time  comes  religion  and  science 
will  be  at  one. 


EVOLUTION  AND   RELIGION  245 

C.    The  Outcome  of  Evolution 

Speculations  as  to  the  meaning  and  outcome  of 
evolution  have  no  place  in  science  but  they  do 
occupy  a  prominent  and  legitimate  place  in  every 
mind.  We  are  creatures  of  a  day ;  we  catch  glimpses 
of  great  world  processes  which  come  out  of  eternity 
and  go  into  eternity  and  it  would  be  presumptuous 
to  suppose  that  we  could  wholly  comprehend  these 
processes  or  forecast  their  outcome.  And  yet  as 
we  may  reason  from  the  present  to  the  past,  so  we 
may  justly,  though  perhaps  imperfectly,  reason 
from  present  and  past  to  the  future. 

The  past  course  of  evolution  together  with  the 
evidences  for  teleology  in  nature  are  strong  argu- 
ments for  a  plan  or  purpose  in  evolution,  the  ulti- 
mate unfolding  of  which  is  probably  beyond  our 
power  to  conceive.  This  purpose  is,  at  least  in 
part,  already  indicated.  Man  is  the  highest  product 
of  evolution.  There  is  good  reason  to  believe  that 
no  higher  animal  will  ever  appear  upon  the  earth. 
Although  the  limits  of  individual  evolution  may 
have  been  reached,  at  least  for  the  present,  there 
is  good  evidence  that  we  have  barely  begun  to 
realize  the  possibilities  of  social  evolution.  To  a 
large  extent  mankind  holds  the  power  of  controlHng 
its  destiny  on  this  planet.  Evolution  through  all 
the  ages  has  been  leading  to  a  higher  intellectual, 
ethical,  and  spiritual  Ufe.     There  is  no  reason  to 


240  EVOLUTION  AND  RELIGION 

believe  that  it  will  change  its  course  to-morrow. 
But  as  in  former  ages  progress  passed  from  indi- 
vidual cells  to  many-celled  organisms,  so  now  it 
is  passing  from  individual  organisms  to  society. 
While  we  cannot  see  the  goal  we  can  see  our  present 
duty. 

The  religion  of  evolution  deals  with  this  world 
rather  than  with  the  next.  It  prays  "Thy  king- 
dom come,  thy  will  be  done  on  earths  It  seeks  to 
build  here  and  now  "The  City  of  God."  It  looks 
forward  to  a  time  when  "Righteousness  shall 
cover  the  earth  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea."  It 
looks  forward  to  unnumbered  ages  of  human  prog- 
ress upon  the  earth,  to  ages  of  better  social  organi- 
zation, of  increasing  specialization  and  co-operation 
among  individuals  and  races  and  nations,  to  ages  of 
greater  justice  and  peace  and  altruism.  Indeed 
the  religion  of  evolution  is  nothing  new,  but  is  the 
old  religion  of  the  world's  greatest  leaders  and 
teachers,  the  religion  of  Confucius  and  Plato  and 
Moses  and  especially  of  Christ  which  strives  to 
develop  a  better  and  nobler  human  race  and  to 
establish  the  kingdom  of  God  on  the  earth. 

To  us  it  is  given  to  co-operate  in  this  greatest 
work  of  all  time  and  to  have  a  part  in  the  triumphs 
of  future  ages,  not  merely  by  improving  the  condi- 
tions of  individual  life  and  development  and  educa- 
tion, but  much  more  by  improving  the  ideals  of 
society   and   by   breeding   a   better  race  of  men 


EVOLUTION  AND   RELIGION  247 

who  will   ''Mould   things  nearer    to    the    heart's 
desire." 

The  inspiring  visions  of  prophets  and  seers  con- 
cerning a  new  heaven,  a  new  earth,  and  a  new  hu- 
manity find  confirmation  and  not  destruction  in 
human  evolution  viewed  in  retrospect  and  in  pros- 
pect, for  the  past  and  present  tendencies  of  evolu- 
tion justify  the  highest  hopes  for  the  future  and 
inspire  faith  in  the  final  culmination  of  this  great 
law  in 

" — one  far-off  divine  event, 
To  which  the  whole  creation  moves." 


I 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


m^ 


JfTCjcHi 


m 

m\ 


,9^986 
APR  £  9 1988 


%«« 


AC 


^-^mi 


ABi' 


It  RtCEIVEO 


IN 

169 

CD-URL 


URL 


70 


315 


I 


3  1 


58  00868  3640 


■iW^ 


.ijs^iixsm&x 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    001  077  626 


KH>:un:UHAU^!M}Mniimiim 


